Примери за използване на Cancellation division на Английски и техните преводи на Български
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Official
-
Medicine
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
the evidence adduced by[Centrotherm Systemtechnik] to the Cancellation Division to show genuine use of its mark are the sworn statement of its manager, 4 invoices
It should be borne in mind that the evidence adduced by the applicant to the Cancellation Division to show genuine use of its mark are the sworn statement of its manager, 4 invoices
The Board of Appeal therefore infringed Article 8(3) of Regulation No 216/96 by failing to examine the claim seeking the partial annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division which was contained in the applicant's observations.
as did the Cancellation Division before it, that the vast majority of the evidence produced by the applicant did not relate to the mark at issue itself,
On 16 November 2004 the intervener brought an appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division(Case R 1063/2004-2) on the ground that each of the grounds for invalidity referred to by Article 51(1)(a)
that the applicant produced almost 12 000 pages of evidence before EUIPO and, secondly, that both the Cancellation Division and the Board of Appeal criticised the applicant for failing to produce evidence of use of the mark at issue itself.
First, that, from the stage at which the mark was examined before the Cancellation Division, there was an exchange of views on whether the mark was descriptive in respect of the meaning‘teakwood' for the purposes of Article 7(1)(c)
an Opposition Division, a Cancellation Division or the Department entrusted with the keeping of the Register,
By decision of 20 September 2004 the Cancellation Division rejected the intervener's application for a declaration of invalidity and ordered it to pay the costs, taking the view that the absolute grounds for refusal referred to in Article 7(1)(b),(c) and(g)
87 of the judgment under appeal, the fact that the Board of Appeal wrongly annulled the decisions of the Cancellation Division in their entirety.
It is in those circumstances that the Cancellation Division considered that, following the exclusion of shelves
arguments concerning the application of Article 8(1),(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, and the Cancellation Division did not examine the likelihood of confusion,
not call into question, before the Board of Appeal, the finding of the Cancellation Division, at paragraph 10 of its decision,
The Fifth Board of Appeal concluded from the foregoing that the Cancellation Division had acted correctly in finding that all of the evidence filed by Sony Computer Entertainment Europe, and the statement of
until the decision of the Cancellation Division has become final
Board of Appeal also infringed Article 8(3) of Regulation No 216/96 because those observations contained a cross-claim seeking the partial annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division which was not examined by the Board of Appeal.
the judgment under appeal, the Board of Appeal of EUIPO would have been obliged to confirm the decision of the Cancellation Division of 11 January 2011 declaring the trade mark at issue invalid,
annulled the decision of the Cancellation Division and ordered the removal from the register of the mark,
Legal Division;(d) the Cancellation Divisions;(e) the Boards of Appeal.
the Department in charge of the Register or Cancellation Divisions.