Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2023:3
Date: 2023-01-18
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Hungary

Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 18 January 2023 – Dorsum v EUIPO – id Quantique (Clavis) (Case T‑758/21) (1) (EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU word mark Clavis – Earlier EU word mark CLAVIS – Failure to identify the earlier trade mark in the notice of opposition – Conditions for admissibility of the opposition) 1. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action before the EU judicature – Power of the General Court to alter the contested decision – Limits (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 72(3)) (see paragraph 20) 2. EU trade mark – Procedural provisions – Opposition proceedings – Communication relating to the admissibility of an opposition (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 47; Commission Regulation 2018/625, Art. 8) (see paragraph 27) 3. EU trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Obligation of the opponent to clearly identify the earlier mark – Admissibility – Obligation of EUIPO to invite the opponent to remedy deficiencies – Not included (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 47; Commission Regulation 2018/625, Arts 2(2)(b)(i) and 5(3)) (see paragraphs 30, 36-38) 4. EU trade mark – Appeals procedure – Action brought against a decision by the Cancellation Division of EUIPO – Examination by the Board of Appeal – Scope – Facts and evidence not produced in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose – Account taken – Discretion of the Board of Appeal – No contrary provision (European Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001, Art. 95(2)) (see paragraphs 57-59) Operative part The Court: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Dorsum Informatikai Fejlesztő és Szolgáltató Zrt. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); 3. Declares that the intervener is to bear its own costs. 1 OJ C 51, 31.1.2022.