Log in

CLASS 46


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...
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
MONDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2014
Lambretta in General Court (Part 2)

Following up on the case reported last Friday on Lambretta and "IP translator", the case T-132/12 Scooters India v OHMI was about a cancellation action for revocation for non-use of  CTM LAMBRETA for goods in Classes 6, 7 and 28, and the interpretation on the assessment of evidence before OHIM.

The applicant appealed to the GC  because the Board of Appeal examined the evidence submitted to it in isolation and not in conjunction with the evidence already provided to the Cancellation Division, inter alia the statement of Mr W., the President of the Lambretta Club of Great Britain.

In its brief to the BoA, the applicant submitted that the documents provided had been assessed in an overly harsh way, ‘given that the previous evidence was filed under an explanatory witness statement of [Mr W.]’. That submission clearly showed that the applicant continued to rely, before the BoA on the evidence previously provided and, in particular, on Mr W.’s statement.

After examining the admissibility of the new evidence submitted by the two parties before it, the Board of Appeal exclusively set out and assessed that new evidence. By contrast, it did not even mention the evidence previously submitted to the Cancellation Division. Furthermore, the Board of Appeal did not, in general terms, adopt the assessment made by the Cancellation Division.

Thus the General Court upheld the first complaint put forward by the applicant and held that the Board of Appeal infringed its obligation to carry out a global assessment which took into account all the relevant factors of the particular case. Consequently, contrary to what OHIM and Brandconcern maintained, the applicant was entitled to put forward before the Court that evidence, as well as the complaint alleging that the Board of Appeal failed to take it into account. The GC annulled the contested decision of the BoA.

Posted by: Laetitia Lagarde @ 18.22
Tags: General Court, Lambretta, revocation for non-use, assessment evidence, OHIM,
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA3899

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






 

 

 

 

 

 


CONTACT

info@marques.org
+44 (0)116 2747355
+44 (0)116 2747365
POST ADDRESS

Unit Q, Troon Way Business Centre
Humberstone Lane, Leicester
LE4 9HA

EMAIL

Ingrid de Groot
Internal Relations Officer
ingrid.de.groot@marques.org
Alessandra Romeo
External Relations Officer
aromeo@marques.org
James Nurton
Newsletter Editor
editor@marques.org
Robert Harrison
Webmaster
robertharrison@marques.org
NEWSLETTER

Signup for our newsletter.
Weekly headlines delivered to your inbox