OHIM have announced details of proposed changes to the current opposition suspension and extension process. The proposal reads as follows:

"OHIM is proposing a change in practice with regard to suspensions and extensions of time in opposition proceedings. In a presentation to OAMI Users Group the office said the move was in response to users demand that the situation be made clearer and more consistent.

If a suspension is requested by the opposition parties, the office proposes in future to grant it for a period of one year (instead of variable periods at present). Subsequent requests will be granted for the same period. During all suspensions any party will be able to opt out and bring the suspension to an end.

With regard to extensions, it is proposed that any first request for an extension, which is received in time, will always be granted. However, any subsequent request for an extension of the same period of time will be refused, unless there is demonstrably a situation of force majeure for the party requesting the second extension.

The office hopes that the proposed changes will make opposition suspensions and extensions more predictable. After hearing the views of the User Group the Office will shortly adopt a final position.  This will be clearly announced on the Office website."

The interesting point here is with the extensions whereby a "situation of force maejure" must be in existence. This is a high level to reach and shows the importance of keeping in contact with your representative, at present if your representative cannot get hold of you then they are likely to file for an extension. However not being able to get hold of the client will not constitute a force maejure event and as such if these proposals go through then any such extension would be rejected and potentially opposition deadlines missed as the representative could not get instructions.