Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-186/04)

Judgment of 15 Jun 2005

law://eu/cjeu/2004/t-186-04/para_44@2026-11-14

44It should be observed, first, that the French-language version of Rule 18(1) of the implementing regulation refers to a clear indication (‘l'acte d'opposition n'indique pas clairement’) while the English-language version of that rule refers to a clear identification (‘the notice of opposition does not clearly identify’). The need for a uniform interpretation of the language versions of a provision of Community law requires that, in the case of divergence between them, the provision must be interpreted by reference to the general scheme and purpose of the rules of which it forms part (Case C-449/93 Rockfon [1995] ECR I-4291, paragraph 28, and Case C-72/95 Kraaijeveld and Others [1996] ECR I-5403, paragraph 28). In the present case, the aim of Rule 18 of the implementing regulation is that the indication of the earlier mark on which the opposition is based should be sufficiently clear for OHIM and the other party to the proceedings to be able to identify it. In the light of that objective, the terminological divergence between those two language versions does not give rise to any contradiction.

Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-186/04)

Connections

History · 1 version

Key facts