Judgment_paragraph 14 · Mundipharma AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-256/04)

14The Court observes that, under Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 44(1)(c) of the Rule of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the application initiating the proceedings must contain a summary of the pleas in law relied on. According to the case-law, the summary of the pleas relied on must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the action, if necessary without any other supporting information. The Court has further held that, while the body of the application may be supported and supplemented by references to certain passages in extracts from documents annexed to it, a general reference to other documents, even those annexed to the application, cannot make up for the absence of the essential arguments in the application, and it is not for the Court to place itself in the parties' position and seek the relevant information in the annexes (see order in Case T-56/92 Koelman v Commission [1993] ECR II-1267, paragraphs 21 and 23, and judgment in Case T-231/99 Joynson v Commission [2002] ECR II-2085, paragraph 154, and case-law cited). That case-law can also be transposed to the response of the other party to opposition proceedings before a Board of Appeal who intervenes before the Court of First Instance, pursuant to Article 46 of the Rules of Procedure, which, by virtue of the second subparagraph of Article 135(1) thereof, applies in matters of intellectual property (Case T-115/02 AVEX v OHIM — Ahlers (a) [2004] ECR II-2907, paragraph 11).

Mundipharma AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-256/04)

History · 1 version

Key facts

Connections