Judgment_paragraph 45 · T-192/04

45Rule 18 concerns the admissibility of the opposition, which OHIM is required to examine on its own initiative, not the requirement to file a translation in the language of the proceedings laid down under Rule 17(2), infringement of which constitutes failure to comply with a substantive condition equivalent to lack of evidence of the facts on which the opposition is based (see Chef, cited in paragraph 40 above, paragraph 44, and Case T-107/02 GE Betz v OHIM — Atofina Chemicals (BIOMATE) [2004] ECR II-1845, paragraph 70).

Flex Equipos de Descanso, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-192/04)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections