Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2005:385
Date: 2005-11-09
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Third Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Concepts: Appeals before the Boards of Appeal
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeal brought against a decision of the Opposition Division of the Office – Examination by Board of Appeal – Scope (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74) It follows from the continuity in terms of functions between the departments of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) that, within the scope of application of Article 74(1) in fine of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, concerning relative grounds for refusal, the Board of Appeal is required to base its decision on all the matters of fact and of law which the party concerned introduced either in the proceedings before the department which heard the application at first instance or, subject only to Article 74(2) relating to belatedly-submitted evidence, in the appeal. Thus, the continuity in terms of their functions between the various departments of the Office does not mean that a party which, before the department hearing the application at first instance, did not produce certain matters of fact or of law within the time-limits laid down before that department would not be entitled, under Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94, to rely on those matters before the Board of Appeal. On the contrary, the continuity in terms of functions means that such a party is entitled to rely on those matters before the Board of Appeal, subject to compliance with Article 74(2) of that regulation before the Board. (see para. 37)