Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

[JURE summary](#SM)

## JURE summary

I - Portuguese Law requires that judicial decisions are substantiated (Articles 154(1), 607(3) and (4), 633(2) and 679 of the Código Civil and Article 205(1) of the Constituição da República Portuguesa), but that does not prevent substantiation by incorporating a ruling appreciated in an appeal or accepting its respective arguments.

II - The Tribunal da Propriedade Intelectual ("Intellectual Property Court)" has jurisdiction, in Portugal, in matters related to EU trademarks (Article 40(2) of the Código da Propriedade Industrial (CPI)). The Lisbon Court of Appeal is the corresponding court of second instance (Article 46(2) of CPI).

III – The jurisdiction to evaluate requests for declarations of invalidity of Community trademarks (currently denominated "EU trademarks") is concentrated at the OHIM (Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (currently denominated "EU Intellectual Property Office"), except if the declaration of invalidity is requested by the defendant, through a counterclaim in an infringement proceeding.

IV - In that case, the court that is competent to try the case - and it must be a Community trademark court - sees its jurisdiction extended to the appreciation of the counterclaim to declare invalidity (Article 96(a) and (b) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on Community trademarks)

V - Therefore, there are only two ways for a Community trademark to be annulled or declared null and void: through a request made to the OHIM or through a counterclaim made to a Community trademark court, in actions within its jurisdiction.

VI - When mentioning court cases regarding infringement and the deduction of counterclaims in infringement proceedings, to obtain the annulment or declaration of invalidity of a Community trademark, Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 is not referring to criminal cases related with the crime of counterfeiting.

VII - If the court in question is not allowed to rule on the request to annul Community trademarks, for the reason of it not being within its jurisdiction, it should treat them as valid, as per article 107 of the Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as long as it is relevant for the evaluation of any other questions that are within the court's jurisdiction, which is not the same as declaring them valid, in an judgment inconsistent with the previously declared lack of jurisdiction.

[Top](#document1)