T 1638/14 - Identity opponent

 Key points

• The opposition is filed without using the form 2300, which as such is no problem.  However, the letter states two different opponents,  namely  "Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH" and "Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH&Co. KG". Both existed as distinct legal entities at the same address. 
• I understand "KG" legal entities are used e.g. for tax reasons.
• The Formalities Officer saw no problem and the OD held the opposition admissible.
• The Board: “the admissibility of an opposition must be examined ex officio at any stage of the opposition and its subsequent appeal proceedings (see decisions cited in Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 9th edition 2019, IV.C.2.3.2). Thus, the board is not only entitled but also obliged to check the admissibility of the opposition at any stage of the proceedings.”
• “the board considers that, by the end of the opposition period, the opponent had not been unambiguously identified and that, therefore, the opposition should have been rejected as inadmissible under Rule 77(1) EPC.”
• The request for correction under Rule 139 is refused.
• “the opponent, which had the burden of proof, has not provided any evidence that the proposed correction was its true intention at the time of filing the opposition”
• The correction was also filed late.

T 1638/14

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t141638eu1.html

decision text omitted