Judgment_paragraph 56 · Anheuser-Busch Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (C-214/09 P)

56By its first plea, Anheuser-Busch claims in essence that, contrary to what was held by the General Court in paragraph 79 of the judgment under appeal, it is clear from a reading of Article 42(3) of Regulation No 40/94 in conjunction with Rules 16(1) and (3) and 20(2) of the implementing regulation (1995) that an opponent must provide, on its own initiative, within the period fixed by OHIM pursuant to Article 42(3) of Regulation No 40/94, evidence of renewal of its earlier mark, relied on under Article 8(1) of Regulation No 40/94, with the other facts, evidence and arguments submitted in support of its opposition, where such renewal occurs after the date on which notice of opposition is filed but before expiry of the period fixed by OHIM.

Anheuser-Busch Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (C-214/09 P)

Connections

History · 1 version

Key facts