Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2017:443
Date: 2017-06-28
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: United Kingdom

summary of those pleas in law. Irrespective of any question of terminology, that information must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the application, if necessary without any further information. In order to guarantee legal certainty and the sound administration of justice, it is necessary, for an action to be admissible in the light of the aforementioned principles, that the basic legal and factual particulars on which it is based be indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself (see order of 19 September 2016, Gregis v EUIPO — DM9 Automobili (ATS), T‑5/16, not published, EU:T:2016:552, paragraph 18 and the case-law cited). 86 Consequently, in accordance with the principle referred to in paragraph 85 above, the complaint relating to an infringement of general principles of law must be declared inadmissible. 87 The sixth plea must therefore be rejected. 88 It follows from all of the foregoing that the action must be dismissed in its entirety. Costs 89 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, 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 the forms of order sought by EUIPO and the intervener. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Tayto Group Ltd to pay the costs. Berardis Papasavvas Spineanu-Matei Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 28 June 2017. E. Coulon G. Berardis Registrar President * Language of the case: English.