Now in its twelfth year, Class 46 is dedicated to European trade mark law and practice. This weblog is written by a team of enthusiasts who want to spread the word and share their thoughts with others.
Who we all are...
THURSDAY, 12 MARCH 2009
Finland: Comments at the Office
A recent Supreme Administrative Court’s decision in a case, which actually concerned a declaration of invalidity of a right to a utility model, has important ramifications to the proceedings at the National Board of Patents and Registration (NBPR) in other areas as well, including trade mark related matters.
Posted by: Mikael Kolehmainen @ 09.43
comments, finland, trade mark proceedings,
In its decision 19.12.2008/3384 the Court held that the principles of fair trial require that the assessment of whether other party’s statement influences the outcome of a case is primarily something to be done by the interested party in the case. Accordingly, and also taking into account the fact that the interested party in the subject case had specifically requested the opportunity to comment on the other party's statements, the Board of Appeal should not have annulled NBPR’s decision without giving the interested party such an opportunity.
This decision has relevance e.g. to trade mark opposition proceedings where the NBPR now has to allow the opponent to comment on the applicant’s statements in reply to the opposition.
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Reader Comments: 0
Post a Comment
MARQUES does not guarantee the accuracy of the information in this blog. The views are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of MARQUES. Seek professional advice before action on any information included here.
The Class 46 Archive