Principle Of Procedural Economy Applied To The EUIPO's Decisions

• Published date: 03 August 2023
• Subject Matter: Intellectual Property, Trademark
• Law Firm: Inventa
• Author: Ms Júlia Alves Coutinho

One fundamental aim of every civil justice system is the efficiency, assuring that any administrative or judicial institution be capable of decide in a timely and cost-effective manner, without compromising the quality and legitimacy of the process, which is known by the principle of procedural economy or judicial economy.

This principle is particularly important in the context of the European Union, where multiple institutions, including the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Council of the European Union, are involved in the decision-making process.

In this sense, this principle is applied in Intellectual Property legislation, appearing in the recitals of the Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union Trademark and in the recitals of the Council Regulation (EC) no. 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs. Therefore, it is applied by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in the decisions involving trademarks and designs, called by principle of economy of proceedings.

In the beginning of the EUIPO Guidelines on Trademark and Designs, it is said that "In the interests of efficiency and in order to prevent parties encountering different practices, the Office applies procedural rules consistently".

In addition to the principle of procedural economy, the Office is also obliged to comply with other the general principles of the European Union law, such as adequate reasoning, right to be heard, equal treatment, legal certainty and sound administration.

Despite of that, the Office is not bound to respond to all the arguments raised by the parties, being sufficient that the Office sets out the facts and legal considerations of fundamental importance in the context of the decision. Therefore, this conduct does not necessarily infringe the duty to state reasons, as confirmed by several decisions of the General Court and of the Court of Justice.¹

Moreover, the Office is not required to give express reasons for its assessment in respect of each and every piece of evidence submitted or arguments put forward, where it considers that evidence or arguments to be unimportant or irrelevant to the outcome of the dispute.²

Furthermore, and in compliance to the principle of economy of proceedings, the Office is not required to prove the accuracy of well-known fact³ used as a basis for its reasoning and, therefore, it is not obliged to give examples of such practical experience; it is up to the party concerned to submit evidence to refute it.⁴

Trademarks

Several legal grounds, based on different earlier rights, may be alleged in either the same or multiple oppositions against the same European Union trademark application.

Following the filing of an opposition within the deadline and upon the payment of the official fee, the Opposition Division will first examine the admissibility of the opposition, to check if the invoked...