43As to the intervener's argument that the Board of Appeal ought not to have taken the declaration of 1 June 1996 into account because it was not translated into the language of proceedings, whereas the Board had refused the documents provided by the intervener as they had not been translated, it should be pointed out that the decision to refuse those documents was based on Rule 17(2) of the implementing regulation. That rule derogates from the rules governing languages generally applicable to the production and use of documents in proceedings before OHIM, as laid down in Rule 96(2) of that regulation, according to which, where those documents are not in the language of the proceedings, OHIM may require a translation to be produced in that language or, at the option of the party to the proceedings, in one of the languages of OHIM within the period laid down by it. Rule 17(2) of the implementing regulation therefore places on a party originating inter partes proceedings a burden greater than that generally placed on parties in proceedings before OHIM. That difference is justified by the need to observe fully the principle of the right to be heard and to ensure equality of arms between the parties in inter partes proceedings (Case T-232/00 Chef Revival USA v OHIM — Massagué Marín (Chef) [2002] ECR II-2749, paragraph 42).
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.