Feng Shen Technology Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-227/09)

Judgment of 21 Mar 2012

law://eu/cjeu/2009/t-227-09/para_25@2026-11-15

25In that regard, it should be noted that the purpose of an action before the General Court is to review the legality of decisions of the Boards of Appeal of OHIM for the purposes of Article 63 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 65 of Regulation No 207/2009), and, in proceedings for annulment, the legality of the contested measure must be assessed on the basis of the elements of fact and of law existing at the time when the measure was adopted. Consequently, according to settled case-law, the General Court’s function is not 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 Rules of Procedure of the General Court, which states that the parties’ pleadings may not change the subject-matter of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal (see judgment of 11 November 2009 in Case T-162/08 Frag Comercio Internacional v OHIM – Tinkerbell Modas (GREEN by missako), not published in the ECR, paragraph 17 and the case-law cited).

Feng Shen Technology Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-227/09)

Key facts

History · 1 version

Connections