| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:1992:T063588.19920228 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 28 February 1992 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 0635/88 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 81200587.4 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | A01K 1/062 A01K 1/08 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | A | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | - | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | De Erven | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Müller & Eilbracht | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.2.03 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | 1. If the Board of Appeal or the Opposition Division has a legitimate doubt as to the identity of the real opponent, it has the power to request the alleged opponent at any time to assist in removing this doubt, e.g. by means of a written sworn statement in accordance with Article 117(1)(g) EPC. 2. The failure of the alleged opponent to comply with such a request, so that the doubt remains, has the effect that the opposition must be rejected as inadmissible, (c.f. T 25/85, OJ EPO 1986, 81). |
||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Inadmissibility of opposition | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t880635ex1.html
Date retrieved: 17 May 2021
17 references found.
Click X to load a reference inside the current page, click on the title to open in a new page.Offical Journal of the EPO
XOJ EPO SE 1/2021, p179 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2020)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2020, p174 - Annex 1 - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2019)
XOJ EPO SE 1/2019, p158 - XVI. - Index of published decisions of the boards of appeal and the Enlarged Board of Appeal - (as at 31 December 2018)