Evidence submitted by OHIM after expiry of period entails the rejection of the opposition

Print this page 03-12-2013
IPPT20131003, CJEU, Rintisch v OHIM - Proti Snack

TRADE MARK LAW - LITIGATION

 

Evidence submitted to OHIM after expiry of period specified; OHIM’s discretion.

 

"22. As the Court has held, it results from the wording of that provision that, as a general rule and unless otherwise specified, the submission of facts and evidence by the parties remains possible after the expiry of the time-limits to which such submission is subject under the provisions of Regulation No 40/94 and that OHIM is in no way prohibited from taking account of facts and evidence which are submitted or produced late.

 

26. The General Court found, in paragraph 36 of the judgment under appeal, that it followed from that provision that the Board of Appeal was bound to apply Rule 20(1) of the Implementing Regulation and, therefore, to find that the submission of evidence after the expiry of the period specified for that purpose by OHIM, in order to establish the existence, validity and scope of protection of the earlier mark, entails the rejection of the opposition, and the Board of Appeal has no discretion in that regard."

 

Appeal must state precisely the contested elements and legal arguments, failing which the plea is inadmissible.


"49. According to consistent case-law, it follows from Article 256 TFEU, the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court, and Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, in the version in force at the date when the appeal was brought (now Article 168(1) (d) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court), that an appeal must state precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal, failing which the appeal or plea concerned is inadmissible."

 

IPPT20131003, CJEU, Rintisch v OHIM – Proti Snack

 

C-120/12 P - ECLI:EU:C:2013:638