Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2002:157
Date: 2002-06-13
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Concepts: Opposition proceedings
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Community trade mark — Registration procedure — Opposition — Rules on the 
conditions for admissibility and examination of the opposition — Application by the 
Office 
(Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 42; Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, 
Rules 16 to 18 and 20) 
II - 2749 
SUMMARY — CASE T-232/00 
2. Community trade mark — Registration procedure — Opposition — Failure to pro­
duce, within the time allowed, the translation of the registration certificate for the 
earlier national mark — Effect on the proceedings before the Opposition Division 
(Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 16 to 18 and 20) 
1. It follows from Article 42 of Regu­
lation No 40/94 on the Community 
trade mark, relating to notice of 
opposition to registration of the trade 
mark, read in conjunction with Rules 
16, 17, 18 and 20 of the implementing 
regulation, that the legislature makes a 
distinction between, on the one hand, 
the conditions which the notice of 
opposition must satisfy, which are laid 
down as conditions of admissibility of 
the opposition, and, on the other hand, 
the submission of the facts, evidence 
and arguments and of the documents 
supporting the opposition, which are 
matters falling within the scope of the 
examination of the opposition. 
As regards the conditions which, if not 
complied with in the notice of opposi­
tion, lead to rejection of the opposition 
as inadmissible, Rule 18(1) and (2) of 
the implementing regulation draws a 
distinction between two types of con­
ditions of admissibility and it is only in 
cases in which the notice of opposition 
does not comply with the conditions of 
admissibility other than those expressly 
referred to in Rule 18(1) that the Office 
for Harmonisation in the Internal 
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) is 
required, by virtue of Rule 18(2), to 
inform the opponent of this and call 
upon him to remedy the deficiency 
within a period of two months before it 
rejects the opposition as inadmissible. 
As regards evidence and documents 
covered by the examination of the 
opposition, which include, if necessary, 
a translation of them into the language 
of the opposition proceedings, if the 
opponent does not present them before 
the expiry of the period initially laid 
down or before the expiry of any 
extension of that period, the Office 
may lawfully reject the opposition as 
unfounded unless, in accordance with 
Rule 20(3) of the implementing regu­
lation, it can give a ruling on it on the 
basis of the evidence which it may 
already have before it. The rejection of 
the opposition in such a case is not 
merely the result of the opponent's 
failure to comply with the period laid 
down by the Office but is also the 
consequence of his failure to comply 
with a substantive condition of opposi­
tion, since the opponent, by failing to 
present, within the period laid down, 
the relevant evidence and supporting 
documents, fails to prove the existence 
of the facts or the rights on which his 
opposition is based. 
(see paras 31, 33, 36, 41, 44) 
II - 2750 
CHEF REVIVAL USA v OHIM — MASSAGUÉ MARÍN (CHEF) 
2. In opposition proceedings brought 
against the registration of a Commu­
nity trade mark under Article 42 et seq. 
of Regulation No 40/94, the failure by 
the opponent to produce within the 
time allowed by the Opposition Divi­
sion, in accordance with Rules 16(3), 
17(2) and 20(2) of the implementing 
regulation and in the language of the 
opposition proceedings, the translation 
of the registration certificate for the 
earlier national trade mark falls within 
the scope of the substantive examin­
ation of the opposition and does not 
therefore constitute a deficiency in the 
notice of opposition within the mean­
ing of Rule 18(2) of the implementing 
regulation, relating to the conditions of 
admissibility of the opposition. 
Consequently, the Office for Harmon­
isation in the Internal Market (Trade 
Marks and Designs) is not under any 
obligation, by virtue of Rule 18(2) of 
the implementing regulation, to point 
out to the opponent the deficiency 
constituted by his failure to produce 
the translation or to grant him an 
additional period of two months within 
which to produce that translation, and 
in such a case Rule 18(2) may not be 
applied by analogy. 
(see paras 52-54, 57) 
II - 2751