• 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
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Restrictions in trade mark application at any time

20. May 2019

In a trade mark application, the applicant can restrict the goods and services at any time. This also applies during proceedings before the Board of Appeal and regardless of whether a statement of grounds was filed, the European Court ruled in proceedings concerning the well-known figurative mark of mobile, the well-known German online automobile marketplace.

mobile trade mark applicationThe applicant mobile.de GmbH (Germany) had applied for annulment of the contested decision, which focused on the figurative mark of the well-known online vehicle market, a car with a speech bubble. In the decision of 7 August 2018 (the contested decision), the EUIPO Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal of mobile against a negative decision of the EUIPO examiner, as the Board of Appeal considered that the requirements for a statement of grounds of appeal pursuant to Article 22(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2018/625 were not fulfilled.

The applicant mobile had submitted two pleadings to the EUIPO: first, the request for restriction of the list of goods and services for all goods and services for which the desired trademark registration had been refused by the examiner, but at the same time also a further pleading as grounds of appeal concerning the restriction of the trademark application. Since that second pleading – the statement setting out the grounds of appeal – was merely annexed to the first pleading, the Board of Appeal did not accept it.

European court confirms plaintiff mobile

Before the European Court (CJEU, it’s the Court of first instance (CFI)), mobile therefore claimed that the Board of Appeal had infringed mobile’s right to restrict the list of goods and services contained in the trade mark application pursuant to Article 49(1) of Regulation 2017/1001. The European Court ruled in favour of mobile. According to the first sentence of Article 27(5) of Delegate Regulation 2018/625, the Board of Appeal must rule on such a request for limitation under Article 49 of Regulation 2017/1001 at the latest in its decision on the appeal, the CJEU ruled. That obligation to rule on such a request for limitation exists for the Board of Appeal irrespective of whether a statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed pursuant to Article 22(1)(b) of Delegate Regulation 2018/625.

Request for restriction had to be decided by the Board of Appeal

The Court also confirmed that the Board of Appeal was the correct body to decide on the application for limitation. Since mobile, as the applicant for that trade mark, filed an application to restrict the goods and services covered by the mark in question at a time when the examiner’s decision refusing registration of that mark was being challenged before the Board of Appeal, the Board of Appeal became competent to rule on such an application for restriction, the CFI clarified.

However, since the Board of Appeal had wrongly dismissed the appeal as inadmissible, it had infringed Article 49(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 in conjunction with Article 27(5) of Delegate Regulation 2018/625 by not deciding on the applicant’s request to restrict the list of goods and services, but by referring to what it considered to be the absence of a statement setting out the grounds of appeal.

 

Would you also like to protect your trademark or brand?

Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law.


Source for text + image:

Judgement of CJEU “mobile” EU:T:2019:292 (in German)

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconjudgement,  EPO Board of Appeal,  Trade Mark Application,  figurative mark,  mobile,  restrictions,  CJEU,  restrict the list of goods and services,  European Court,  statement of grounds,  CFI,  EU Regulation 2017/1001

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Trademark 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

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

SPOTIFY v POTIFY – a ‘pot’ app

10. February 2022
CFI: Shoes MADE IN ITALY

CFI: Shoes MADE IN ITALY

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
  • 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]