ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)
15 December 2008 (*)
(Community trade mark – Application for renewal of Community word mark ‘ADDIS’ – Time-limit for bringing proceedings – Manifest inadmissibility)
In Case T‑253/08,
Addis Group Ltd, established in Bridgend (United Kingdom), represented by S.F. Ryan, Solicitor,
applicant,
v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM),
defendant,
ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 April 2008 (Case R 1017/2007‑1) relating to an application for restitutio in integrum and renewal of the Community word mark ‘ADDIS’,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Fourth Chamber),
composed of O. Czúcz, President, I. Labucka (Rapporteur) and K. O’Higgins, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Procedure and forms of order sought by the applicant
1 The applicant brought this action by application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 27 June 2008.
2 The applicant claims that the Court should:
– annul the contested decision;
– order OHIM to grant the application for restitutio in integrum relating to the trade mark ‘ADDIS’;
– order OHIM to pay the costs.
Law
3 Under Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, where the action is manifestly inadmissible, the Court of First Instance may, by reasoned order, and without taking further steps in the proceedings, give a decision on the action.
4 In the present case, the Court has sufficient information in the documents on the file and will, pursuant to that article, give its decision on the action without taking further steps in the proceedings.
5 Under Article 63(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), as amended, an action against a decision of a Board of Appeal of OHIM must be brought within two months of the date of notification of that decision. According to Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure, prescribed time-limits are to be extended on account of distance by a single period of 10 days.
6 According to settled case-law, that time-limit for bringing proceedings is a matter of public policy, since it was established in order to ensure that legal positions are clear and certain and to avoid any discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice, and the Community judicature must ascertain of its own motion whether it was observed (see, with regard to the time-limit referred to in the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC, Case C‑246/95 Coen [1997] ECR I‑403, paragraph 21, and Joined Cases T‑121/96 and T‑151/96 Mutual Aid Administration Services v Commission [1997] ECR II‑1355, paragraphs 38 and 39).
7 In the present case, it is apparent from the documents in the case that the contested measure was notified to the applicant on 16 April 2008. In accordance with Article 101(1)(a) and (b) and Article 102(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the time-limit for bringing proceedings expired on 26 June 2008, including the extension on account of distance.
8 It is true that the application was received at the Court Registry by telefax on 16 June 2008, before the expiry of the time-limit for bringing proceedings.
9 Nevertheless, according to Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure, the date on which a copy of the signed original of a pleading is received at the Court Registry by telefax is to be deemed to be the date of lodgment for the purposes of compliance with the time-limits for taking steps in proceedings only if the signed original of the pleading is lodged at the Registry no later than 10 days after receipt of the telefax.
10 In the present case, however, the original application was received at the Court Registry only on 27 June 2008, after the end of the 10-day period referred to in Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure. Consequently, in accordance with that provision, it is only the date on which the signed original was lodged – 27 June 2008 – that is to be deemed to be the date of lodgment for the purposes of compliance with the time-limit for bringing proceedings. Therefore, it must be concluded that the application was lodged out of time.
11 By letter of 14 July 2008, the Court invited the applicant to state by 30 July 2008 why the original application was received at the Registry after the end of the 10-day period referred to in Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure. The applicant replied to that letter by telefax sent on 29 July 2008, before the expiry of the time-limit imposed. However, since the original of that letter was received at the Court Registry on 14 August 2008, after the end of the 10-day period referred to in Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court decided not to place the reply with the documents in the case and, accordingly, it must be concluded that the applicant did not submit observations within the time-limit imposed.
12 It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the application must be dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible, and it is not necessary for the application to be served on the defendant.
Costs
13 As the present order was adopted prior to service of the application on the defendant and before the latter could have incurred costs, it is sufficient to decide that the applicant must bear its own costs pursuant to Article 87(1) of the Rules of Procedure.
On those grounds,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. The action is dismissed.
2. The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs.
Luxembourg, 15 December 2008.