J 0022/95 (Designation of Contracting States in divisional application) of 04.07.1997
- European Case Law Identifier
- ECLI:EP:BA:1997:J002295.19970704
- Date of decision
- 4 July 1997
- Case number
- J 0022/95
- Petition for review of
- -
- Application number
- 94120537.9
- IPC class
- B44C 5/04
- Language of proceedings
- English
- Distribution
- Published in the EPO's Official Journal (A)
- Download
- Decision in English
- Other decisions for this case
- -
- Abstracts for this decision
- -
- Application title
- Procédé pour la décoration d'un panneau
- Applicant name
- Aumac Limited
- Opponent name
- -
- Board
- 3.1.01
- Headnote
A designation of a Contracting state is deemed to be withdrawn if the designation fee has not been paid in due time in respect of this State. Failure to pay the designation fee thus means that the initial designation of this Contracing State in an application is void ab initio and is deemed never to have taken place. Thus, there is no right to designate in a divisional application a Contracting State which was originally designated in the parent application at the time of filing, unless the original designation was subsequently validated by payment of the respective fee.
- Relevant legal provisions
- European Patent Convention Art 112 1973European Patent Convention Art 122(5) 1973European Patent Convention Art 64 1973European Patent Convention Art 65 1973European Patent Convention Art 67(4) 1973European Patent Convention Art 76(1) 1973European Patent Convention Art 76(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 76(3) 1973European Patent Convention Art 78(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 79(2) 1973European Patent Convention Art 80 1973European Patent Convention Art 91(4) 1973European Patent Convention R 104c(2) 1973European Patent Convention R 15(2) 1973European Patent Convention R 25(3) 1973European Patent Convention R 85a(1) 1973
- Keywords
- Designation in divisional application of Contracting State not effectively designated in parent application - no
- Catchword
- -
ORDER
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The request for referral to the Enlarged Board of the four questions submitted at the oral proceedings on 4. July 1997 is refused.
2. The appeal is dismissed.