Judgment (extracts);Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2018:2
Date: 2018-01-16
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

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 application must accordingly specify the nature of the grounds on which the action is based, which means that a mere abstract statement of the grounds does not satisfy the requirements of the Rules of Procedure (see judgment of 11 September 2014, Gold East Paper and Gold Huasheng Paper v Council, T‑444/11, EU:T:2014:773, paragraph 93 and the case-law cited). In addition, it has already been held that the abstract reliance on general principles of law, without identifying those principles, does not constitute a summary of the pleas in law for the purposes of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 76(d) of the Rules of Procedure (order of 8 March 2006, Service station Veger v Commission, T‑238/99, not published, EU:T:2006:69, paragraph 30). 92 In the present case, as EUIPO rightly points out, it must be observed that the applicant merely states that the Board of Appeal infringed the general principles of EU law without elaborating any further on its plea. Consequently, the third plea in law must be dismissed as inadmissible and, therefore, the action must be dismissed in its entirety. Costs 93 Under Article 134(1) 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. 94 Furthermore, under Article 190(1) of the Rules of Procedure, costs necessarily incurred by the parties for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal are to be regarded as recoverable costs. On the other hand, it is clear from that same provision that the General Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on the costs relating to the proceedings before the Opposition Division of EUIPO. An application for taxation of such costs must therefore be declared inadmissible. 95 In the present case, since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, including the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, in accordance with the forms of order sought by EUIPO and the intervener. On those grounds, THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber) hereby: 1. Dismisses the action; 2. Orders Sun Media Ltd to pay the costs. Frimodt Nielsen Forrester Perillo Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 16 January 2018. E. Coulon S. Frimodt Nielsen Registrar President * Language of the case: English.