Judgment_paragraph 27 · Axis AB v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-70/08)

27If that statement falls to be construed as the submission — made for the first time at the hearing — of a head of claim seeking variation of the decision, that head of claim must be dismissed as inadmissible, regardless even of whether it may be out of time. Although Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court provides that ‘[a]n intervener … may, in his response …, seek an order annulling or altering the decision of the Board of Appeal on a point not raised in the application’, it follows from that provision — by dint of a contrario reasoning — that OHIM is not entitled, for its part, to seek such a form of order (Case C-106/03 P Vedial v OHIM [2004] ECR I-9573, paragraph 34).

Axis AB v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-70/08)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections