header-logo header-logo

EU—Trademarks

03 May 2013
Issue: 7558 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

El Corte Ingles, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade and Designs) (OHIM) and another T-571/11, [2013] All ER (D) 175 (Apr)

It was settled law that the purpose of an action before the General Court was to review the legality of the decisions of the Boards of Appeal of the Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) within the meaning of Art 65 of the Council Regulation (EC) 207/2009 (on the Community trade mark). It followed from that provision that facts not submitted by the parties before the departments of OHIM could not be submitted at the stage of the action brought before the General Court and that the latter could not re-evaluate the factual circumstances in the light of evidence adduced for the first time before it. The legality of a decision of a Board of Appeal of OHIM should be assessed in the light of the information available to it when it had adopted that decision.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll