Submission of additional proof of use of mark permissible through use of discretion conferred upon OHIM.
"30. It follows from the foregoing that, as the General Court correctly found in the judgment under appeal, where, as in this case, evidence considered relevant for the purposes of establishing use of the mark at issue was produced within the time limit set by OHIM under Rule 22(2) of Regulation No 2868/95, the submission of additional proof of such use remains possible after the expiry of that time limit. In such a case, and as the General Court also correctly found, OHIM is in no way prohibited from taking account of evidence submitted out of time through use of the discretion conferred on it by Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009, as was noted at paragraphs 22 and 23 of this judgment."
IPPT20130718, CJEU, New-Yorker v OHIM
C-621/11 P - ECLI:EU:C:2013:484
