Safariland LLC v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-262/09)

Judgment of 13 Apr 2011

law://eu/cjeu/2009/t-262-09/para_92@2026-11-14

92However, the Boards of Appeal cannot be required to provide an account which follows exhaustively and one by one all the reasoning articulated by the parties before them. The reasoning may therefore be implicit on condition that it enables the persons concerned to know why the decision of the Board of Appeal was taken and provides the competent Court with sufficient material for it to exercise its review jurisdiction (see, by analogy, Joined Cases C-204/00 P, C-205/00 P, C-211/00 P, C-213/00 P, C-217/00 P and C-219/00 P Aalborg Portland and Others v Commission [2004] ECR I-123, paragraph 372, and Case C-3/06 P Groupe Danone v Commission [2007] ECR I-1331, paragraph 46).

Safariland LLC v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-262/09)

History · 1 version

Key facts

Connections