Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2023:576
Date: 2023-07-13
Language of the case: German
Subject matter: Intellectual, industrial and commercial property;Designs
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal
Origin: Germany

summary of those pleas in law. That information given must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the General Court to rule on the action. In order to guarantee legal certainty and the sound administration of justice it is necessary, in order for an action before the General Court to be admissible, that the basic legal and factual particulars relied on be indicated, at least in summary form, coherently and intelligibly in the application itself (see, to that effect, judgments of 29 March 2012, Commission v Estonia, C‑505/09 P, EU:C:2012:179, paragraph 34, and of 3 March 2022, WV v EEAS, C‑162/20 P, EU:C:2022:153, paragraphs 67 and 68). 97 In the present case, it is clear that the matters of law on which the alleged infringement of essential procedural requirements relied upon in the first plea is based are in no way apparent in the text of the application at first instance, since KaiKai confined itself to raising such an infringement without putting forward any argument whatsoever in support of that plea. It follows that the first plea in law must be rejected as inadmissible. 98 As regards the second part of the second plea in law, it is sufficient to observe that, on the grounds set out in paragraphs 57 to 85 of the present judgment, that part must be rejected as unfounded. Neither Article 41(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 nor Article 4 of the Paris Convention – which, moreover, does not have direct effect in the EU legal order – makes it possible to claim priority for an international application filed under the PCT when filing a subsequent design application within a period of 12 months, irrespective of whether that international application concerns a utility model or a patent. Thus, in accordance with those provisions, in the first of those situations, the period for claiming a right of priority on the basis of that international application is set at six months whereas, in the second of those situations, the existence of such a right is precluded from the outset. 99 Since the first plea and the second part of the second plea in the action for annulment have been rejected, that action must be dismissed. Costs 100 Under Article 184(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where the appeal is unfounded or where the appeal is well founded and the Court itself gives final judgment in the case, the Court is to make a decision as to the costs. 101 Under Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, which applies to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 184(1) thereof, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. 102 In the present case, since KaiKai has been unsuccessful in both the present appeal and the proceedings at first instance, it must be ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by EUIPO in both sets of proceedings, in accordance with the pleadings of EUIPO and the Commission. 103 In accordance with Article 140(1) of those rules of procedure, applicable to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 184(1) thereof, the Member States and institutions which have intervened in the proceedings are to bear their own costs. 104 Consequently, the Commission, which has intervened in the present appeal, is ordered to bear its own costs. On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby: 1. Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 April 2021, The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann v EUIPO (Gymnastic and sports apparatus and equipment) (T‑579/19, EU:T:2021:186), in so far as it upholds the second part of the second plea in law in the action at first instance and annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 13 June 2019 (Case R 573/2019-3); 2. Dismisses the action brought by The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann GbR in Case T‑579/19; 3. Orders The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann GbR to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in both the present appeal and the proceedings at first instance; 4. Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. [Signatures] * Language of the case: German.