| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:EP:BA:2015:T221713.20150610 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of decision: | 10 June 2015 | ||||||||
| Case number: | T 2217/13 | ||||||||
| Application number: | 07750700.2 | ||||||||
| IPC class: | A47L 25/08 A47L 13/16 |
||||||||
| Language of proceedings: | EN | ||||||||
| Distribution: | D | ||||||||
| Download and more information: |
|
||||||||
| Title of application: | WEAR INDICATOR FOR A FLOCKED SCOURING MATERIAL | ||||||||
| Applicant name: | 3M Innovative Properties Company | ||||||||
| Opponent name: | Carl Freudenberg KG | ||||||||
| Board: | 3.2.04 | ||||||||
| Headnote: | - | ||||||||
| Relevant legal provisions: |
|
||||||||
| Keywords: | Admissibility of appeal - missing statement of grounds | ||||||||
| Catchwords: |
- |
||||||||
| Cited decisions: |
|
||||||||
| Citing decisions: |
|
||||||||
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. The appeal is directed against the decision of the Opposition Division of 12 September 2013, posted on 15 October 2013.
II. The appellant filed a notice of appeal on 23 October 2013 and paid the appeal fee on the same day.
III. By communication of 20 March 2015, received by the appellant, the Registry of the Board informed the appellant that it appeared from the file that the written statement of grounds of appeal had not been filed, and that it was therefore to be expected that the appeal would be rejected as inadmissible pursuant to Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 101(1) EPC. The appellant was informed that any observations had to be filed within two months of notification of the communication.
IV. No reply was received.
Reasons for the Decision
No written statement setting out the grounds of appeal was filed within the time limit provided by Article 108, third sentence, EPC in conjunction with Rule 126(2) EPC. In addition, neither the notice of appeal nor any other document filed contains anything that could be regarded as a statement of grounds pursuant to Article 108 EPC and Rule 99(2) EPC.
Therefore, the appeal has to be rejected as inadmissible (Rule 101(1) EPC).
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
The appeal is rejected as inadmissible.
