CONTENT SYNDICATION
*ATOM* FEED:


 

CONTENT SYNDICATION
RSS 0.91 FEED:


 

BLOGROLL OPML:

BLOGROLL OPML FILE

 


Search in IPJUR.COM

 

[Powered by Google]

  

BLOG@IP::JUR

Patent Attorney Axel H Horns' Blog on Intellectual Property Law.

 

INTERNAL LINKDisclaimer & About This Website

 

 

INTERNAL LINK Visit the archives

 

Sunday, September 16, 2007

 

Changes To OHIM Opposition Proceedings.

From EXTERNAL LINKCommunication No. 5/07 of the President of the OHIM, Mr Wubbo de Boer, of 12 September 2007 on changes of practice in opposition proceedings:
"[...] In order to streamline opposition proceedings, the Office has decided to make a number of changes to both the admissibility and the adversarial phases. The main aims are to simplify the admissibility check process; provide clarity on the division of costs when either an opposition or a CTM application is withdrawn; and reduce the administrative burden associated with requests for repeated extensions of suspension periods. [...]"
In particular, the changes comprise:
  • Oppositions will be considered admissible if all absolute and relative requirements for admissibility are complied with for at least for one of the earlier rights.
  • OHIM will prima facie accept the indication of the class number(s) as a sufficient indication of the goods and services of the earlier rights on which the opposition is based.
  • Cost decisions will be issued together with the confirmation of the withdrawal, either of the opposition or of the CTM application
  • In order to avoid repetitive joint requests to continue suspensions every two months if the parties have not finished their negotiations, the Office will now ex oficio grant the second request for suspension for a period of one year, giving the parties the possibility to opt out. The process is the same as for the extension of the cooling off period.
  • EXTERNAL LINKRule 79a CTMR IR sets out that in inter partes proceedings the parties must provide a copy of the documents submitted unless these are submitted by fax. From now on evidence without a copy as mentioned above, will be rejected and not taken into account. No period of time will be given for providing a copy. (standard letters have been updated and contain a warning that observations and evidence not sent by fax and not consisting of loose sheets must be sent together with a copy).
Technorati Tags: EXTERNAL LINK

INTERNAL LINK[Permalink]

INTERNAL LINK Visit the archives

 

INTERNAL LINK< ? law blogs # >

 

INTERNAL LINKTechnorati Profile

 

BLOGROLL