Paul Alfons Rehbein (GmbH & Co.) KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-214/08)

Judgment of 28 Mar 2012

law://eu/cjeu/2008/t-214-08/para_53@2026-11-14

53Rule 22(2) of Regulation No 2868/95 must be understood as not precluding the admission of additional evidence which merely supplements other evidence submitted within the time-limit laid down from being taken into account, where the initial evidence was not irrelevant, but was held to be insufficient. Such reasoning, which in no way renders the above rule superfluous, is all the more appropriate because the applicant did not abuse the time-limits by knowingly employing delaying tactics or by demonstrating manifest negligence, and because the additional evidence which it submitted merely corroborated the evidence resulting from the affirmations which were submitted within the time-limits.

Paul Alfons Rehbein (GmbH & Co.) KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-214/08)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections