Information;Order — ECLI:EU:C:2022:170
Date: 2022-02-22
Language of the case: Spanish
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - inadmissible
Origin: Spain

Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 22 February 2022 – Residencial Palladium v EUIPO (Case C‑674/21 P) (Appeal – EU trade mark – Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Article 170b Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Request failing to demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed) 1. Appeals – 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, Arts 170a(1) and 170b) (see para. 11) 2. Appeals – 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(1) and 170b) (see paras 12-14) 3. Appeals – 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 – Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a(1) and 170b) (see paras 15-17) Operative part 1. The appeal is not allowed to proceed. 2. Residencial Palladium, SL, shall bear its own costs.