Judgment_paragraph 16 · MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-407/08)

16In that regard, it should be borne in mind that the purpose of an action before the Court is to review the legality of decisions of the Boards of Appeal of OHIM within the meaning of Article 63 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 65 of Regulation No 207/2009). It is therefore not the Court’s function to re-evaluate the factual circumstances in the light of evidence which has been adduced for the first time before it. To admit such evidence is contrary to Article 135(4) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, which prohibits the parties from changing the subject-matter of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal (Case T-128/01 DaimlerChrysler v OHIM (Grille) [2003] ECR II-701, paragraph 18, and judgment of 19 November 2008 in Case T-269/06 Rautaruukki v OHIM (RAUTARUUKKI), not published in the ECR, paragraph 20).

MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-407/08)

Key facts

Connections

History · 1 version