Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2010:571
Date: 2010-09-30
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded

summary, the relevant person to be considered is the one with responsibility for taking the act in question. Only when that person becomes aware of the non-compliance can the relevant time period for an application begin to run. (vi). While the provisions of the EPC are not strictly binding in community law, they must clearly be highly persuasive. Where there is EPO case law on the same wording, it is highly desirable that it be construed in the same way. If interpreted differently, then one or the other interpretation must be wrong. The appellant submits that the parallel decisions in the EPO are correct and that their reasoning is correct. ____________ 1 - Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade markOJ L 11, p. 1