Corte di giustizia UE n. 883/2019

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) 10 July 2019 ( * ) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed — [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice — Request failing to show that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] law — Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑359/19 P, APPEAL under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 56 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], brought on 5 May 2019, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] d.o.o., established in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by A. Ivanova, avocat, appellant, the other parties to the proceedings being: [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EUIPO), defendant at first instance, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], proizvodnja izdelkov za spanje d.o.o., established in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Slovenia), intervener at first instance, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed), composed of R. Silva de [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA][OSCURATO:PERSONA], C. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the Chamber, and A. Rosas, Judge-Rapporteur, after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], M. Szpunar, makes the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 By its appeal, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] d.o.o. asks the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice to set aside the judgment of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 5 March 2019, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v EUIPO — [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) (T‑263/18, EU:T:2019:134; ‘the judgment under appeal’) by which the latter dismissed [OSCURATO:PERSONA] action seeking the annulment of the decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EUIPO) of 27 February 2018 ([OSCURATO:PERSONA] R 883/2017-4), concerning revocation proceedings between [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA], proizvodnja izdelkov za spanje. Determination as to whether the appeal should be allowed to proceed 2 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 58a of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], an appeal brought against a decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerning a decision of an independent board of appeal of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is not to proceed unless the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice first decides that it should be allowed to do so. 3 The third paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 58a of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] provides that an appeal is to be allowed to proceed, wholly or in part, in accordance with the detailed rules set out in the Rules of Procedure, where it raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] law. 4 Paragraph 1 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 170a of the Rules of Procedure provides that the appellant is to annex to the appeal a request that the appeal be allowed to proceed, setting out the issue raised by the appeal that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] law and containing all the information necessary to enable the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice to rule on that request. 5 In its appeal, the appellant relies on a single ground of appeal alleging that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] infringed [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1) when it verified whether the conditions for the genuine use, within the meaning of that provision, of an EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘meblo’ had been satisfied. 6 In support of its request that the appeal be allowed to proceed, the appellant submits that the appeal raises issues that are significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] law concerning, in essence, the conditions for the genuine use of a trade mark that was the subject of a licence agreement concluded before that mark was filed. 7 In that regard, it must be found that, in its request that the appeal be allowed to proceed, the appellant merely restates, in essence, the arguments relied on in support of its appeal and fails to show in any way how the errors in law that allegedly vitiate the judgment under appeal raise issues that are significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] law and justify allowing the appeal to proceed. 8 In the light of the findings above, the request that the appeal be allowed to proceed must be refused. Costs 9 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 137 of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to proceedings on appeal pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 184(1) of those rules, a decision as to costs is to be given in the order which closes the proceedings. 10 In this instance, 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 appellant is to bear its own costs. On those grounds, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) hereby orders: 1. The appeal shall not be allowed to proceed. 2. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] d.o.o. shall bear its own costs. Luxembourg, 10 July 2019. A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] R. Silva de [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed * Language of the case: English.