• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Dr. Christoph Hölscher
      • Eva Maria Amoah
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Time limit missed for remedying deficiencies at EUIPO

25. January 2021

In a case of an application for the protection of a design, the CFI ruled on the “restitutio in integrum” after a missed deadline for remedying deficiencies at the EUIPO. Indirect evidence is possible, but there is a mandatory duty of care.

Frist verpasstFacts

Jeffrey Scott Crevier (USA) filed a Community design application in September 2018, searching protection for the territory of the EU. The design showed an air freshener. The application was accompanied by seven views of the design and claimed priority to U.S. design application No. 29,641,525.

During the application process, Mr. Crevier was notified in writing by the European Office (EUIPO) that there were deficiencies in the views of the design and also in the evidence claiming the earlier priority; he was requested to correct these deficiencies within the time limit.

Time limit for remedying deficiencies

EUIPO sets a clear time limit for remedying deficiencies, which applies to both EU trademark applications and Community design applications. If an application does not meet the requirements, the Office invites the applicant to remedy the deficiencies or default within two months from the date of notification of the deficiency.

In this case, the deadline for correcting deficiencies in the attached views of the design was February 17, 2019, and this already included the five-calendar-day extension provided for in the case of transmission by electronic means, an official rule of the EUIPO.

Time limit missed for correcting deficiency

Mr. Crevier then provided a certified copy of the U.S. application for the design, thus the deficiency with respect to the priority claim was corrected, and the Office also notified him of this on December 12, 2018.

Subsequently, Mr. Crevier designated a professional representative (this was communicated electronically to EUIPO). However, this electronic communication was not received until February 28, 2019 – and thus after the deadline for correcting deficiencies – via the user area of an account opened at EUIPO.
That electronic communication also advised that the professional representative had already called EUIPO on January 21 and 22, 2019, first to speak with the examiner, then to learn how to respond to the notice of deficiency, since there was no “click to reply” button associated with the communication in the “user area” of his EUIPO account, and to request a callback. Since there was no callback, he responded to the deficiency notice sent by airmail to EUIPO on January 22, 2019, the representative claimed, and supported this with a copy of the letter.

But, there is nothing more than this electronically transmitted copy of the letter as evidence of the letter allegedly sent by airmail.

As a result, EUIPO refused the Community design application. Plaintiff Crevier did not want to accept this and requested reinstatement of the application before the EUIPO according to Art. 67 of Regulation No. 6/2002. This case has now been decided by the European Court of Justice (Court of First Instance, CFI).

CFI emphasizes duty of care

The CFI dismissed the action. A prerequisite for the restoration of previous rights – called ‘restitutio in integrum’ – is the duty of care, the court emphasized. In principle, it must be assumed that an effective system of internal monitoring and control of compliance with deadlines takes place if the posting of postal items with normal mail is used as a means of communication. This must also include verification of receipt of these items by the recipient, the court ruled.

Such a requirement also does not violate the principle of proportionality, the court added. For example, the representative could also have used the fax machine to transmit his response to the notice of defects.

Moreover, it also raises questions that he sent the airmail letter in a hurry without entering it in the outgoing mail log, even though there were almost three weeks left at the end of January until the set deadline expired.

Restitutio in integrum can be granted only in the case of extraordinary and thus, according to experience, unforeseeable events, the court stressed.

Comparable decision was different

In vain, claimant Crevier referred to the comparable and different decision SunPark Holidays/Sunparks (R 1928/2011-4, Sun Park Holidays v Sunparks, 2012), in which the Board of Appeal had accepted indirect evidence. This SunPark Holidays case was entirely different, the CFI ruled, because in that case the existence of irregularities in the functioning of the German postal service had been proven. In addition, the employee of the representative in the Sun Park Holidays/Sunparks case had made an affidavit.

Therefore, Mr. Crevier’s claim was dismissed in its entirety and reinstatement was denied.

Time limit missed? Deficiencies in the application for a trademark / design?

Our attorneys have many years of expertise in trademark law as well as in the entire field of intellectual property and are authorized to represent you before any court – in Germany as well as internationally.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you are interested.

 

Sources:

Urteil des EuG, EU:T:2021:26

Image:

own creation based on un-perfekt | pixabay | CCO License and Free-Photos | pixabay | CCO License

  • share  10 
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconDesign Law,  Trademark Law Tag iconTrademark,  deadline missed,  deadline to remedy defects,  EUIPO,  due diligence,  EUIPO deadline missed,  defects,  Application,  time limit set,  Design Application,  remedying deficiencies,  Trademark Application,  time limit,  CFI,  restitutio in integrum,  Design,  deadline

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Design Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022
  • EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible 24. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

25. February 2022
CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks?

24. February 2022
EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible

21. February 2022
CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

CFI: Pumpkin seed oil + PGI symbol

17. February 2022
China joins the Hague Agreement

China joins the Hague Agreement

15. February 2022
SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Torhaus Westhafen
Speicherstrasse 59
D – 60327 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]