Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62009TJ0109

Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2011.
Bernhard Rintisch v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PROTIVITAL - Earlier national word and figurative marks PROTIPLUS, PROTI and PROTIPOWER - Late submission of documents - Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Concept of a provision to the contrary - Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95.
Case T-109/09.

European Court Reports 2011 II-00458*

ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2011:762





Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2011 – Rintisch v OHIM – Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires (PROTIVITAL)

(Case T-109/09)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark PROTIVITAL – Earlier national word and figurative marks PROTIPLUS, PROTI and PROTIPOWER – Late submission of documents – Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Concept of a provision to the contrary – Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 – Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95

Community trade mark – Appeals procedure – Appeal brought against a decision of the Opposition Division of the Office – Examination by Board of Appeal – Scope – Evidence not submitted in support of the opposition within the prescribed time-limit – Account taken – Discretion of the Board of Appeal (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 74(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Arts 20(1) and 50(1)) (see paras 31-33, 37-42)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 January 2009 (Case R 1660/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Bernhard Rintisch and Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA.

Operative part

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs.

Top