Order — ECLI:EU:T:2013:575
Date: 2013-10-24
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: United Kingdom

summary of the pleas in law on which it is based. 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. The applicant must, accordingly, specify the nature of the grounds on which it is based, so that a mere abstract statement of the grounds does not satisfy the requirements of the Rules of Procedure. Similar requirements are called for where a submission is made in support of a plea in law (judgment in Case T‑352/94 Mo och Domsjö v Commission [1998] ECR II‑1989, paragraph 333). 67 It must be stated that the extremely laconic and summary nature of the way the head of claim referred to in paragraph 65 above is presented does not make it possible to identify how OHIM infringed the rules invoked, in such a way as to enable the Court to exercise its power of review (see, to that effect, Case T‑131/99 Shaw and Falla v Commission [2002] ECR II‑2023, paragraph 172). That head of claim must therefore be rejected as manifestly inadmissible. 68 It follows from all of the foregoing that the third plea and also the action in its entirety must be rejected as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly lacking any foundation in law without there being any need to examine the head of claim with a view to alteration put forward by the applicant. Costs 69 Under Article 87(2) 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. Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with form of order sought by OHIM and the intervener. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber) hereby orders: 1. The action is dismissed. 2. Stromberg Menswear Ltd shall pay the costs. Luxembourg, 24 October 2013. E. Coulon S. Papasavvas Registrar President * Language of the case: English.