Log in


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.

Want to receive Class 46 by email?
Click here subscribe for free.

Who we all are...
Anthonia Ghalamkarizadeh
Birgit Clark
Blog Administrator
Christian Tenkhoff
Fidel Porcuna
Gino Van Roeyen
Markku Tuominen
Niamh Hall
Nikos Prentoulis
Stefan Schröter
Tomasz Rychlicki
Yvonne Onomor
FRIDAY, 17 JUNE 2011
Atlas transports: mind the ..culture gap!

In Case T-145/08 which opposed Atlas Transport GmbH to Atlas Air, Inc., the Court dealt with peculiar procedural matters. The facts are as follows: the Cancellation division in 2007 annulled the contested CTM on the basis of, among others, an earlier Benelux right.

The CTM Applicant brought an appeal claiming that nullity proceedings relating to the earlier Benelux mark had been filed before the Court of Hague and stated ‘that it wished to contest the use of the earlier right but does not want to burden OHIM with voluminous documents and refers to evidence sent for a prior separate case in 2005’ and further declared ‘since the procedure will now be suspended, we refrain from submitting any further observations other than the previous owner suffered a gross injustice, which goes against natural justice’.

The Court rejected the arguments of the Applicant which claimed that OHIM being a multinational administration, the European legislator had always strived to draft the formalities to a minimum and organize the procedure in a “simple and friendly” manner. The GC held that the CTMR could not be interpreted, because of its legal-cultural differences in communicating with the Office, as absolving the Appellant from filing actual statement of grounds of appeal with a minimum of explanation on why it wishes to reform the contested decision; furthermore, the filing of the writ of summons before the Court of Hague is insufficient to demonstrate there is an actual pending procedure before the Court of Hague to suspend automatically the appeal procedure before OHIM and anyways the contested decision was based in part on the contested Benelux right, in part on other earlier rights.

Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 14.00
Tags: General court, OHIM practice,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA2422
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








+44 (0)116 2747355
+44 (0)116 2747365

Unit Q, Troon Way Business Centre
Humberstone Lane, Leicester


Ingrid de Groot
Internal Relations Officer
Alessandra Romeo
External Relations Officer
James Nurton
Newsletter Editor
Robert Harrison

Signup for our blogs.
Headlines delivered to your inbox