Withdrawal Of Ctm Applications Past Times Silence

This is a reposting of yesterday’s blog, which was mysteriously eaten yesteryear network ghosties. News of a decision from the OHIM Second Board concerning the implied withdrawal of applications to register CTMs.

The applicant applied to register TRENTON every bit a CTM inwards Class 7. The opponent opposed the application based on its LENTON mark, registered inwards Classes vi too 7. The opposition was rejected on the footing of dissimilarity of marks. The opponent appealed, only the applicant submitted no observations during either the opposition or the appeal proceedings. Among the grounds of appeal, the opponent argued that the opposition had been lodged against a seemingly non-existent entity, the applicant.

Silent applicants, hither comes the twist...

The appeal too opposition proceedings were shut too the contested determination did non stimulate got effect:

*The opponent’s allegation that the applicant did non be was unfounded. Although the applicant had non submitted whatever observations throughout the proceedings, at that spot could last many reasons why this would last the case.

*However, the applicant’s inactivity could non last ignored. Instead, it was treated every bit an implicit withdrawal of the CTM application. Withdrawals must usually last express, only they tin last implied when it may last inferred from facts too circumstances, which inwards the Office’s sentiment unequivocally demonstrate that the applicant has withdrawn its application. Such a criterion could last reached yesteryear analogy alongside the instance police push clit on renouncement of merchandise grade rights inwards the cases involving exhaustion where goods are parallel imported from exterior the EU.

*In this case, the applicant’s full quiet throughout both the opposition too appeal proceedings unequivocally demonstrated that the applicant had lost all involvement inwards registering its Community merchandise grade application, which implied its withdrawal too therefore, the consequent outcome of the proceedings, every bit follows from Article 81(3) CTMR.

wonders if this piece of job of the parallel import cases agency that at that spot is a merchandise mark-wide criterion for implying consent from silence.