#copyright #patent #trademark #brandprotection #infringement #news #newsupdate #topnews #world #headlines #breakingnews #latestnews #trending #hotnews #blogging #education #educationalblog #Repowermap #RepowerAG #EUIPO #PowerPlants #RenewalbleEnergy
Repower AG filed an appeal against the decision of the General Court. The main problem is between Repowermap and Repower AG. Both works on power plants and renewable energies. In June 2013, Repowermap applied for invalidating the mark “Repower” on the ground that it was a descriptive sign and was devoid of distinctive character in respect of all the goods and services of classes 4, 9, 37, 39, 40 and 42 of the Nice Classification.
The Cancellation Division of EUIPO in relation to the goods and services in Classes 37 and 42 upheld the declaration of invalidity and dismissed the ground of invalidity in other goods and services. In July 2014, the Division further held that evidence presented by Repowermap to proof the use of “Repower” mark as common usage in trade was inadequate.
The decision of The Division was challenged before the Board of Appeal by Repowermap. The appeal was dismissed on February 8th 2016. Thereafter, Repowermap appealed before the General Court for cancellation of the decision of the Board of Appeal. The Board of Appeal decided to revoke their decision on August 3rd 2016.
Repower AG filed an appeal before the General Court against the revocation of decision on October 10th 2016. On February 21st 2018 the General Court dismissed the pleas of Repower AG. Repower AG filed an appeal before the Registry of the Court of Justice against the decision of the General Court in April 2018. The Court of Justice opined to dismiss the Second and third ground of appeal brought by Repower AG May 2019. The proceedings are governed by Regulation (EC) No 207/2009. Article 80, 83 of Regulation No 207/2009 is applied in this case.
On the direction given by the Court, the Advocate general focused on the second and third ground of appeal. Repower AG alleges that Board of Appeal infringed Article 80. The Court analysed that the legislature considered it appropriate to limit the situations in which the departments of EUIPO are entitled to revoke their own decisions and it is possible only if a decision contains an obvious procedural error. The appellant further complains that the Board of Appeal has no authority to revoke their decision. The Court finally held that the grounds of appeal are inadmissible and ineffective. The Court of Justice sends the case back to the General Court to further proceed.