Order;Information — ECLI:EU:C:2023:780
Date: 2023-10-11
Language of the case: English

Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 11 October 2023 – Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO (Case C‑355/23 P) (1) (Appeal – Community design – Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed) 1. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Burden of proof (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b) (see paragraph 13) 2. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Request that an appeal be allowed to proceed – Formal requirements – Scope (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a and 170b) (see paragraphs 14-16) 3. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to demonstrate that the issue is significant – Appeal not allowed to proceed (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a and 170b) (see paragraphs 17, 24, 25) 4. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Issue that has not been examined by the Court – Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to demonstrate that the issue is significant – Appeal not allowed to proceed (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a and 170b) (see paragraph 18) 5. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Precluded (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a and 170b) (see paragraphs 19, 20) 6. Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Conflict with the case-law of the Court of Justice or of the General Court – Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to demonstrate that the issue is significant – Appeal not allowed to proceed (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a and 170b) (see paragraphs 21-23) Operative part 1. The appeal is not allowed to proceed. 2. Tinnus Enterprises LLC shall bear its own costs. 1 OJ C 944, 27.11.2023.