Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2005:224
Date: 2005-06-15
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Second 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 - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Belgium

Summary of the Judgment Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Obligation of the opponent to clearly identify the earlier mark – Scope – Obligation to represent the earlier mark – None (Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rules 15(2)(b)(vi) and 18(1)) Under Rule 18(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 implementing Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, ‘where the notice of opposition does not clearly identify the application against which opposition is entered or the earlier mark or the earlier right on the basis of which the opposition is being entered, the Office shall reject the notice of opposition as inadmissible unless those deficiencies have been remedied before expiry of the opposition period’. That rule must be interpreted as requiring a sufficiently clear indication of the earlier mark on which the opposition is based to enable it to be identified, before expiry of the opposition period. The indication of the registration number of the mark in question and of the Member State in which it is registered constitutes a clear identification for the purposes of that provision. On the other hand, it is not possible to infer from Rule 15(2)(b)(vi) of the implementing regulation, concerning the content of the notice of opposition, an obligation to represent the earlier mark in the context of Rule 18(1) of that regulation. (see paras 42, 46-47, 49)