Corte di giustizia UE n. 2185/2026

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) 19 March 2026 ( * ) ( [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 155 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice – Failure to adjudicate – None ) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑365/25 P‑OST, APPLICATION under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 155 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice, brought on 12 December 2025, [OSCURATO:SOCIETA], established in Milan (Italy), represented by S. de Bosio, avvocato, and D. Philippe, avocat, applicant, the other parties to the proceedings being: [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EUIPO), defendant at first instance, Health and Happiness (H&H) [OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (China), intervener at first instance, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed), composed of T. von [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA][OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], M. Gavalec and Z. Csehi (Rapporteur), [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: M. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], makes the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 By its application, [OSCURATO:SOCIETA] requests that a failure by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice to adjudicate in the order of 2 December 2025, [OSCURATO:SOCIETA] v EUIPO (C‑365/25 P, EU:C:2025:1022), be remedied. 2 By that order, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice did not allow the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 2 April 2025, [OSCURATO:SOCIETA] v EUIPO – H&H (Swisse) (T‑442/23, EU:T:2025:354), to proceed, by which judgment the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] dismissed its action for annulment of the decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EUIPO) of 31 May 2023 ([OSCURATO:PERSONA] R 2185/2019-1 RENV), relating to invalidity proceedings between [OSCURATO:SOCIETA] and Health and Happiness (H&H) [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 3 In support of its application, the applicant claims, in essence, that, in the abovementioned order, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice failed to adjudicate on a specific head of claim set out in its request that the appeal be allowed to proceed, namely the head of claim set out in paragraph 8 of that order. The applicant maintains that the considerations in paragraphs 14 to 17 of that order do not adequately address the arguments which it raised in that request that the appeal be allowed to proceed. Consequently, it submits that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] did not consider that head of claim and that, in so doing, it failed to adjudicate on it. 4 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 159a of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice, where a request or an application referred to in Chapter 9 of those rules – which includes [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 155 thereof – is, in whole or in part, manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may, having heard the Judge-Rapporteur and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], at any time decide to dismiss it, in whole or in part, by reasoned order. 5 In that regard, it must be borne in mind that it follows from [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 155(1) of the Rules of Procedure that a failure to adjudicate stems from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s breach of its obligation to adjudicate on all the heads of claim submitted to it, including those relating to costs. On the other hand, an application under that provision cannot be brought before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in order to allege that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] failed to adjudicate on one or more arguments raised before it (order of 23 March 2023, Correia de Matos v Commission , C‑79/22 P‑OST, EU:C:2023:258, paragraph 10 and the case-law cited). 6 In the present case, it must be stated that, in its application, the applicant does not establish that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in the order of 2 December 2025, [OSCURATO:SOCIETA] v EUIPO (C‑365/25 P, EU:C:2025:1022), failed to adjudicate on a particular head of claim in the request that the appeal be allowed to proceed, but merely claims that certain arguments raised in support of that request were not adequately examined. 7 In addition and in any event, given that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], by that order, as is apparent from paragraph 1 of the operative part thereof, rejected the request that the appeal be allowed to proceed in its entirety, the heads of claim submitted by the applicant in that order were all necessarily dismissed (see, by analogy, order of 23 March 2023, Correia de Matos v Commission , C‑79/22 P‑OST, EU:C:2023:258, paragraph 12 and the case-law cited). 8 Accordingly, the applicant’s application seeking that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’s alleged failure to adjudicate in the order of 2 December 2025, [OSCURATO:SOCIETA] v EUIPO (C‑365/25 P, EU:C:2025:1022), be remedied must be dismissed as manifestly unfounded. Costs 9 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. In the present case, since the present order was adopted before the appeal was served on the other parties to the proceedings and, therefore, before they could have incurred costs, it is appropriate to decide that the applicant is to bear its own costs. On those grounds, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) hereby orders: 1. The application under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 155(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice, brought on 12 December 2025 by [OSCURATO:SOCIETA], is dismissed. 2. [OSCURATO:SOCIETA] shall bear its own costs. Luxembourg, 19 March 2026. A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] T. von [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed * Language of the case: English.