Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2010:375
Date: 2010-09-09
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Sweden

Summary of the Judgment 1. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Time-limit and form of appeal – To be brought in writing and within a period of two months – Payment of the amount corresponding to the fee for appeal – Act insufficient of itself (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 59) 2. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Actions before the Community judicature – Procedural role of the Office (Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 134(3)) 3. Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Actions before the Community judicature – Jurisdiction of the General Court – Review of the legality of decisions of the Boards of Appeal (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 63(3)) 1. Under Article 59 of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, the notice of an appeal against the decision of the bodies of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) must be filed in writing at OHIM within two months of the date of notification of the decision under appeal. While Article 59 of Regulation No 40/94 provides that the appeal is deemed to be filed only when the fee for appeal has been paid, the mere payment of the corresponding amount cannot be considered to be equivalent to the notice required under that provision. (see paras 22-23) 2. Although Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court provides that an intervener may, in his response, seek an order annulling or altering the decision of the Board of Appeal on a point not raised in the application, it follows from that provision – by dint of a contrario reasoning – that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) is not entitled, for its part, to seek such a form of order. (see para. 27) 3. The General Court reviews the legality of the decisions of the bodies of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs). If it holds that such a decision, called into question in an action brought before it, is vitiated by illegality, it must annul it. It may not dismiss the action while substituting its own reasoning for that of the competent OHIM body which is the author of the contested act. (see para. 29)