2.2.4 Identity of opponent and correction of opponent's name
In T 870/92 of 8 August 1997 date: 1997-08-08 the board emphasised that, when indicating a legal entity, failure to use its exact official designation (R. 26(2)(c) EPC 1973 and R. 61a EPC 1973; R. 41(2)(c) and R. 86 EPC) did not necessarily mean that the opposition was inadmissible. An incorrect designation which nevertheless sufficed to indicate the party's identity had to be distinguished from the absence of such information. Errors in a designation could be corrected at any time (R. 88, first sentence, EPC 1973; R. 139, first sentence, EPC; see also T 828/98 and T 719/09).
In principle, the use of an abbreviation instead of the full name of a legal entity does not render an opposition inadmissible as long as the party's identity can be established. In T 1034/08, the board had no reasonable doubt that the abbreviation GSK stood for GlaxoSmithKline with regard to the identity of the Belgium-based opponent GSK Biologicals. Given that Belgian company law allows the co-existence of more than one company name and that GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals was the company's sole primary name, the board concluded that abbreviation GSK Biologicals did not constitute an incorrect designation of the opponent.
In T 1893/22, the board endorsed the analysis of the opposition division in its decision that the fact that a submission was filed on a business letter indicating the old legal form (SASU) did not undermine its opinion that the change to the legal form of the then opponent from SASU to SARL indicated a change of name only, as the letter was filed close to the date of change of the legal form and thus the company stationery might not have been updated yet or the use of the old footer might have been overlooked. A letter filed 10 days later indicated SARL in the footer.