Case T‑171/13

Benelli Q. J. Srl

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community figurative mark MOTOBI B PESARO — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Evidence submitted against the application for revocation after the expiry of the period set for that purpose — Failure to take account thereof — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Provision to the contrary — Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Rule 50(1), third subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber), 2 February 2016

1.      Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Boards of Appeal — Re-examination of the facts in the light of evidence not previously submitted before OHIM bodies — Exclusion

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 65)

2.      Community trade mark — Appeals procedure — Appeal against a decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM — Examination by the Board of Appeal — Scope — Facts and evidence not produced in support of the opposition within the period prescribed for that purpose — Account taken — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — New or supplementary evidence

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 76(2); Commission Regulation No 2868/95, Art. 1, Rule 50(1), third subpara.)

3.      Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Genuine use — Criteria for assessment

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 51(1)(a))

4.      Community trade mark — Surrender, revocation and invalidity — Causes of revocation — Absence of genuine use of a trade mark — Figurative mark MOTOBI B PESARO

(Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 51(1)(a))

1.      See the text of the decision.

(see para. 26)

2.      Regulation No 2868/95 implementing Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, provides that, when examining an appeal directed against a decision of the Opposition Division, the Board of Appeal enjoys the discretion deriving from the third subparagraph of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 and from Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 to decide whether or not to take into account additional or supplementary facts and evidence which were not presented within the time-limits set or specified by the Opposition Division.

The various language versions of the third subparagraph of Rule 50(1) do not fully correspond. Moreover, the expression ‘faits ou preuves nouveaux’, construed to the effect that in the proceedings before the lower instance there was allegedly no fact or item of evidence submitted, does not appear in certain language versions of that provision. In that regard, it is apparent from the various language versions that the ‘new’ facts or evidence as provided for in the French version must supplement facts or evidence already submitted so that, for evidence to be so characterised (as ‘new’ or supplementary), other evidence must have been submitted at an earlier stage of the proceedings.

That interpretation also applies having regard to the Board of Appeal’s discretionary power, which cannot extend to evidence submitted for the first time before it where no evidence had been submitted before the Cancellation Division.

(see paras 51-55)

3.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 69-75)

4.      See the text of the decision.

(see paras 81-89,102)