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

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • 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. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Board of Appeal in opposition proceedings: Scope of the examination

14. October 2021

Does a partial withdrawal and limitation to one part of the goods and services in the opposition proceedings entail a partial withdrawal of the opposition to the other part? The CFI explained in this context the scope of the Board of Appeal’s examination in the opposition proceedings between Škoda and Škoda.

Opposition proceedings: EU figurative mark “Arrow with wings”

Skodamarken Prüfung der Beschwerdekammer
left: Mark of Škoda Auto, right: Mark of Škoda Investment

In this ruling from yesterday (on 13 October 2021, T-712/20) in trade mark proceedings between Škoda Auto and Škoda Investment (both Czech Republic) concerning the EU figurative mark “arrow with wings”, the CFI dealt in detail with the scope of the Board of Appeal’s examination in opposition proceedings in the context of an appeal relating to a relative ground for refusal of a trade mark.

That was the case as applicant Škoda Investment had opposed the trade mark application of the intervener, Škoda Auto a.s., with reference to Article 8(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation 2017/1001, i.e. it had relied on the fact that the contested trade mark “arrow with wing” was identical to its own earlier trade mark and that, because of the identity or similarity, there was also a likelihood of confusion in relation to the goods or services claimed. This is a so-called relative ground for refusal of a trade mark.

The case was complicated because both marks in dispute are based on a priority of another mark: the mark of Skoda Auto a.s. claims the priority of the Lebanese mark No. 88468 of May 2018, whereas the mark of Škoda Investment claims the priority for the application of the Czech mark No. 550086 of August 2018.

Partial withdrawal in opposition proceedings

With reference to the earlier priority of the Lebanese trade mark, the Opposition Division had rejected the opposition of the applicant Škoda Investment, whereupon Škoda Investment filed a complaint before the Board of Appeal. It argued, the Opposition Division had failed to observe (in breach of Article 34(1) of Regulation 2017/1001) that an EU trade mark must be identical to the trade mark from the priority. However, specifically tracking and navigation software of Nice class 9 (and even further goods and services of classes 9, 38 and 39) were not included in the scope of protection of the Lebanese trade mark.

Škoda Investment was also upheld for these contested goods and services, and the decision of the Opposition Division was reversed by the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO with regard to them.

However, this partial withdrawal also had the consequence that the goods and services not mentioned in that statement of grounds were no longer part of the opposition proceedings and that the rejection of the opposition had become final in respect of those unmentioned goods and services.

The applicant Škoda Investment considered this to be a procedural error and a breach of essential procedural requirements to be examined ex officio, which should have led to the complete annulment of that decision ex officio. It brought an action before the European Court of Justice (CFI).

Scope of the examination of the Board of Appeal

In this context, the CFI explained the scope of the Board of Appeal’s examination in opposition proceedings.

i. Not beyond the appeal filed

Accordingly, in the context of an appeal relating to a relative ground for refusal of a trade mark and directed against a decision of the Opposition Division, the Board of Appeal may not go beyond the subject-matter of the appeal before it. The Board of Appeal is thus bound by the limits of the relief sought by the appellant’s appeal.

ii. Exception: fundamental procedural requirements

However, this does not apply to legal grounds which were not raised by the parties but which concern fundamental procedural requirements, the CFI added. This includes the rules governing the admissibility of an opposition, which the Board of Appeal is entitled to examine, the CFI noted.

iii. Board of Appeal may not amend applications

However, the Court emphasised that the Board of Appeal may not, in any event, amend of its own motion requests made by an appellant on appeal.

Grounds of appeal are the necessary basis for the relief sought in an appeal, the CFI explained, but they are distinct from those relief sought, which define the limits of such an appeal. The CFI referred to the ECJ judgment British Airways (C:2017:861), in which the highest European court had already ruled in the same way.

But that was relevant to the present case. If the Board of Appeal had annulled the Opposition Division’s decision in its entirety, as the applicant Škoda Investment claimed, this would have had the consequence, according to the CFI, that the Board would have gone beyond the subject matter of the dispute as defined by the applicant itself.

Examination by the Board of Appeal: correcting procedural errors

However, as long as a decision has not become final, its legality can be examined by the Board of Appeal in the case of an appeal, the ECJ emphasised, which was, moreover, the case here. Moreover, the task of the Board of Appeal is precisely to correct such procedural errors and consequently, if necessary, to annul a decision that is tainted with them.

The action brought by Škoda Investment a.s. was therefore dismissed in its entirety by the CFI.

Opposition proceedings – also an issue for you?

Our attorneys have many years of expertise in design law and trade mark law as well as in the entire field of intellectual property and are entitled to represent you before any court – in Germany and also internationally.

Please contact us if you are interested.


 

Sources for text and image:

CFI Judgement ‘Škoda’, EU:T:2021:700

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconTrademark Law Tag iconAppeal examination,  Board of Appeal,  Board of Appeal in opposition proceedings,  CFI,  Examination of an appeal in opposition proceedings,  Examination of the Board of Appeal,  opposition proceedings,  Relative ground for refusal,  Scope of the examination,  Škoda

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

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • 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

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:

3. June 2024
What is the public allowed to know?

What is the public allowed to know?

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

Contact us or request a call back

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

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 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

Newsletter INT

© Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG

Contact Form

 

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

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

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

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

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

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.