Information;Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2023:434
Date: 2023-07-26
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - inadmissible
Origin: Poland

summary of the pleas in law relied on, and that summary must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the action, if necessary without any other supporting information (see judgment of 18 September 2012, Scandic Distilleries v OHIM – Bürgerbräu, Röhm & Söhne (BÜRGER), T‑460/11, not published, EU:T:2012:432, paragraph 16 and the case-law cited). 137 Accordingly, as regards the parts of the third plea alleging infringement of the right to be heard and breach of the principles of sound administration and legal certainty guaranteed by the Charter, it must be held that the applicant confines itself to referring to those rights and principles without specifying how they were infringed or breached by the Board of Appeal. They must therefore be rejected as inadmissible. 138 In the light of the foregoing, the third plea must be rejected and, consequently, the action must be dismissed in its entirety, without it being necessary to rule on the admissibility of the applicant’s request for the case to be referred back to EUIPO. Costs 139 Under Article 134(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. 140 Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs incurred in the present proceedings, in accordance with the forms of order sought by EUIPO and the intervener. 141 The intervener has also contended that the applicant should be ordered to pay the costs incurred by the intervener in the proceedings before EUIPO. In that regard, it is sufficient to note that, since this judgment dismisses the action brought against the contested decision, point 2 of the operative part of that decision, read in the light of paragraph 109 of the grounds of that decision, continues to govern the costs incurred in the course of the proceedings before the Cancellation Division and in the appeal proceedings before EUIPO (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 October 2017, Aldi v EUIPO – Sky (SKYLITe), T‑736/15, not published, EU:T:2017:729, paragraph 131). On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Apart sp. z o.o. to pay the costs. Spielmann Öberg Gâlea Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 26 July 2023. V. Di Bucci G. De Baere Registrar President * Language of the case: English.