- AG opines on trade mark case concerning entitlement to file notice of opposition (QuaMa v EUIPO)
- What was the background?
- What did the AG opine?
- Case details
IP analysis: This Advocate General (AG) opinion concerns an appeal lodged by QuaMa against the General Court judgment in QuaMa Quality Management v EUIPO—Microchip Technology, Case T‑225/15 (not published) relating to opposition proceedings between Microchip Technology (the intervener) and Mr Alexander Bopp. The AG opined that, on a preliminary analysis, the ground of appeal appeared to raise a point of law concerning an intervener’s entitlement to file a notice of opposition in the context of a transfer of the earlier mark to a new proprietor but, a more detailed examination of that ground of appeal revealed that QuaMA has failed to demonstrate either that the facts and evidence submitted to the General Court were in any way distorted or that the General Court made an error of law. The AG therefore proposes that the Court of Justice reject the appeal.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial