Tresplain Investments Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-303/08)

Judgment of 9 Dec 2010

law://eu/cjeu/2008/t-303-08/para_46@2026-11-14

46In that context, it must be stated that the Board of Appeal is not obliged to express a view on every argument submitted by the parties. It is sufficient if it sets out the facts and the legal considerations having decisive importance in the context of the decision (see, to that effect, judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 January 2007 in Case C-404/04 P Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau v Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraph 30). It follows that the fact that the Board of Appeal did not reproduce all of the arguments of one party, or did not reply to each of those arguments, cannot by itself lead to a finding that the Board of Appeal refused to take them into account.

Tresplain Investments Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-303/08)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections