Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Community trade mark — Languages of the Office — Obligation on the applicant for registration of a Community trade mark to indicate a second language as a possible language of procedure in opposition, revocation and invalidity proceedings — Sending of written communications in the second language — Scope — Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination — None — (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 115(4))

2. European Communities — Language regime — Whether there is a general principle enshrining every citizen ' s right to have any act that may affect his interests drafted in his language — None

3. Community trade mark — Languages of the Office — Obligation on the applicant for registration of a Community trade mark to indicate a second language as a possible language of procedure in opposition, revocation and invalidity proceedings — Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination — None — (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 115(3))

4. Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Council Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark — Languages of the Office — (Art. 253 EC; Council Regulation No 40/94)

Summary

1. It follows from Article 115(4) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, that the option, available to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), of using the second language chosen by the applicant to send him written communications if the application was made in a language other than the languages of the Office is an exception to the principle that the language of proceedings be used, and the term " written communications" must therefore be interpreted strictly.

Since the proceedings comprise all such acts as must be carried out in processing an application, it follows that the term " procedural documents" covers any document that is required or prescribed by the Community legislation for the purposes of processing an application for a Community trade mark or necessary for such processing, be they notifications, requests for correction, clarification or other documents. All such documents must therefore be drawn up by the Office in the language used for filing the application.

In contrast to procedural documents, " written communications" , as referred to in the second sentence of Article 115(4) of that Regulation, are any communications which, from their content, cannot be regarded as amounting to procedural documents, such as letters under cover of which the Office sends procedural documents, or by which it communicates information to applicants.

Since the use of the second language in this context cannot adversely affect the legal interests of an applicant for a Community trade mark, it follows that any difference in treatment that might result from use of the second language would be negligible in scope and in any event justified by the operating needs of the Office.

see paras 45-47, 96

2. The references in the Treaty to the use of languages in the European Union cannot be regarded as evidencing a general principle of Community law that confers a right on every citizen to have a version of anything that might affect his interests drawn up in his language in all circumstances.

see para. 82

3. The obligation in Article 115(3) of Regulation No 40/94 on applicants for a Community trade mark to " indicate a second language which shall be a language of the Office [for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)] the use of which he accepts as a possible language of proceedings for opposition, revocation or invalidity proceedings" does not contain an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination.

The language regime of a body such as the Office is the result of a difficult process which seeks to achieve the necessary balance between the interests of economic operators and the public interest in terms of the cost of proceedings, but also between the interests of applicants for Community trade marks and those of other economic operators in regard to access to translations of documents which confer rights, or proceedings involving more than one economic operator, such as opposition, revocation and invalidity proceedings within Regulation No 40/94. Therefore in determining the official languages of the Community which may be used as languages of proceedings in opposition, revocation and invalidity proceedings, where the parties cannot agree on which language to use, the Council was pursuing the legitimate aim of seeking an appropriate linguistic solution to the difficulties arising from such a failure to agree. Similarly, even if the Council did treat official languages of the Community differently, its choice to limit the languages to those which are most widely known in the European Community is appropriate and proportionate.

see paras 92-95

4. The scope of the obligation to state reasons depends on the nature of the measure in question and, in the case of measures of general application, the statement of reasons may be confined to indicating the general situation which led to its adoption, on the one hand, and the general objectives which it is intended to achieve, on the other. If the contested measure clearly discloses the essential objective pursued by the institution, it would be excessive to require a specific statement of reasons for the various technical choices made.

In that connection the provisions in Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark concerning the language regime of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) are sufficient to indicate the underlying justifications and to enable those justifications to be reviewed.

see paras 102-103