Order — ECLI:EU:C:2019:616
Date: 2019-07-12
Language of the case: English
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - inadmissible
Origin: Italy

ORDER OF THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COURT 12 July 2019 (*) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Article 170a(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — No request that an appeal be allowed to proceed — Appeal inadmissible) In Case C‑412/19 P, APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 27 May 2019, Xianhao Pan, residing in Rome (Italy), represented by M. Oliva, avvocato, appellant, the other parties to the proceedings being: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), defendant at first instance, Entertainment One UK Ltd, established in London (United Kingdom), intervener at first instance, THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COURT, makes the following Order 1 By his appeal, Mr Xianhao Pan asks the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 21 March 2019, Pan v EUIPO — Entertainment One UK (TOBBIA) (T‑777/17, not published, EU:T:2019:180) by which the latter dismissed Mr Xianhao Pan’s action seeking the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 September 2017 (Case R 1776/2016-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, the appellant and, on the other hand, Entertainment One UK and Astley Baker Davies. 2 The appeal falls within the scope of Article 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the Statute’). 3 It follows from the last sentence of Article 170a(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice that, where an appeal falls within the scope of Article 58a of the Statute, a request that the appeal be allowed to proceed must be submitted with that appeal; if there is no such request, the appeal is inadmissible. 4 In this instance, the appeal was received by the Court Registry by email on 18 May 2019, and the original of that document was lodged on 27 May 2019. 5 On 28 May 2019, the Registry invited the appellant to put his appeal in order by submitting the request required under Article 170a(1) of the Rules of Procedure by 4 June 2019 at the latest. 6 The request referred to in the paragraph above was submitted to the Registry by email on 4 June 2019. On the same day, the appellant’s attention was drawn to the wording of Article 57(7) of the Rules of Procedure, which provides that the date on which a copy of the signed original of a procedural document is received at the Registry by telefax or any other technical means of communication available to the Court is deemed to be the date of lodgment for the purposes of compliance with the procedural time limits, provided that the signed original of that document is lodged at the Registry no later than 10 days thereafter. 7 On 14 June 2019, that is to say 10 days after the email referred to above was sent, the original of the appellant’s request that the appeal be allowed to proceed had yet to be lodged at the Registry. 8 Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed as inadmissible pursuant to the last sentence of Article 170a(1) of the Rules of Procedure. On those grounds, the Vice-President of the Court hereby orders: The appeal is dismissed as inadmissible. Luxembourg, 12 July 2019. A. Calot Escobar R. Silva de Lapuerta Registrar Vice-President * Language of the case: English.