Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
26 W (pat) 9/10 KI-generiert

Trademark appeal: Wiedereinsetzung for missed fee payment due to attorney fault under § 91 MarkenG and § 85 ZPO

Geschäftsnummer 26 W (pat) 9/10
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Deutschland (DE)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Gutgeheissen (Allowed)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Federal Patent Court's 26th Senate granted the applicant's petition for reinstatement into the previous legal standing, effectively waiving the deadline for paying the appeal fee and allowing the trademark complaint to proceed. The dispute arose from a trademark complaint procedure concerning a word/figurative mark application, where the applicant failed to timely deposit the appeal fee due to a procedural failure. The court determined that the applicant had plausibly demonstrated, without fault attributable to herself or her legal representative, that she was prevented from making the payment in time, thereby satisfying the requirements for equitable relief. The decision was grounded in the German Trademark Act (§ 91 Abs. 1 Satz 1 MarkenG) regarding reinstatement and applied the standard of personal fault from the Code of Civil Procedure (§ 85 Abs. 2 ZPO) to attribute responsibility to the procedural representative.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

§ 85 Abs. 2 ZPO, § 91 Abs. 1 Satz 1 MarkenG; Trademark appeal: Wiedereinsetzung for missed fee payment due to attorney fault under § 91 MarkenG and § 85 ZPO: The dispute arose from a trademark complaint procedure concerning a word/figurative mark application, where the applicant failed to timely deposit the appeal fee due to a procedural failure. The court determined that the applicant had plausibly demonstrated, without fault attributable to herself or her legal representative, that she was prevented from making the payment in time, thereby satisfying the requirements for equitable relief. The decision was grounded in the German Trademark Act (§ 91 Abs. 1 Satz 1 MarkenG) regarding reinstatement and applied the standard of personal fault from the Code of Civil Procedure (§ 85 Abs. 2 ZPO) to attribute responsibility to the procedural representative.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
Patentanwalt Gebührenzahlung Bildmarken Beschwerdelegitimation Zivilprozessordnung Fristversäumnis

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
§ 85 Abs. 2 ZPO
Procedural standard applied to determine that the applicant was not at fault for the missed deadline due to the conduct of the legal representative.
§ 91 Abs. 1 Satz 1 MarkenG
Primary legal basis for granting the applicant reinstatement into the previous legal standing for the missed deadline to pay the appeal fee.
KI-generiert
27 W (pat) 554/16
Trademark appeal fee: Wiedereinsetzung denied where attorney's lack of statutory knowledge and unconfirmed dual filing constitute procedural fault
30 W (pat) 556/10
Reinstatement of missed appeal deadlines and fee payment denied for unexplained professional negligence in trademark proceedings
27 W (pat) 44/12
Trademark appeal fee paid late: culpable breach of payment deadline defeats reinstatement request under § 91 MarkenG
25 W (pat) 581/17
Trademark appeal deemed unfilled due to late fee payment: Reinstatement denied for attorney's failure to verify deadline when filing brief
27 W (pat) 578/10
Trademark appeal fee payment: Insufficient fee paid due to attorney's misapprehension of amount bars reinstatement as culpable error of law.

Zentrale Rechtsfragen, extrahiert von Legislator

KI-generiert
§ 91 Abs. 1 Satz 1 MarkenG

Primary legal basis for granting the applicant reinstatement into the previous legal standing for the missed deadline to pay the appeal fee.

§ 85 Abs. 2 ZPO

Procedural standard applied to determine that the applicant was not at fault for the missed deadline due to the conduct of the legal representative.

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

Markenbeschwerdeverfahren – "sparhandy (Wort-Bild-Marke)" – Wiedereinsetzung in die Frist zur Einzahlung der Beschwerdegebühr

[TENOR]

In der Beschwerdesache

betreffend die Markenanmeldung 307 31 772.2

hat der 26. Senat (Marken-Beschwerdesenat) des Bundespatentgerichts in der Sitzung vom 3. März 2010 durch den Vorsitzenden Richter Dr. Fuchs-Wissemann, den Richter Reker und den Richter Lehner

beschlossen:

Der Anmelderin wird auf ihren Antrag Wiedereinsetzung in die Frist zur Einzahlung der Beschwerdegebühr gewährt.

[GRUENDE]

Die Anmelderin hat glaubhaft gemacht, ohne eigenes oder ihr zuzurechnendes Verschulden ihrer Verfahrensbevollmächtigten (§ 85 Abs. 2 ZPO) an der rechtzeitigen Einzahlung der Beschwerdegebühr verhindert gewesen zu sein.

Ihr war daher antragsgemäß Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand zu gewähren (§ 91 Abs. 1 Satz 1 MarkenG).