| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2005:T100804.20050128 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 28 January 2005 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 1008/04 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 97915892.0 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | A61K 7/075 | ||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | Conditioning shampoo composition | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Beiersdorf AG Henkel Kommanditgesellschaft auf Aktien |
||||||||
| Board: | 3.3.07 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Missing Statement of Grounds | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal contests the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office posted on 15. June 2004 revoking European patent No. 0889716 pursuant to Article 102(1)EPC.
The Appellant (Proprietor of the patent) filed a notice of appeal on 13 August 2004 and paid the fee for appeal on the same day.
No statement of grounds was filed. The notice of appeal contains nothing that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC.
II. In a communication dated 8 November 2004 sent by registered letter with advice of delivery, the Registry of the Board informed the Appellant that no statement of grounds had been filed and that the appeal could be expected to be rejected as inadmissible.
The Appellant was informed about the possibility of filing a request for re-establishment of rights under Article 122 EPC and was invited to file observations within two months.
III. No answer has been received within the given time limit to the Registry's communication.
Reasons for the Decision
As no written statement setting out the grounds of appeal has been filed, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible, (Article 108 EPC in conjunction with Rule 65(1) EPC).
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
