Order — ECLI:EU:C:2019:356
Date: 2019-05-02
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment;Appeal - unfounded;Appeal - inadmissible
Origin: Ireland

summary of those pleas in law. That summary must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the other parties to the proceedings before the General Court to prepare their observations and the General Court to rule on the action, if necessary without any other supporting information. It is therefore necessary for the essential points of law and fact on which a case is based to be indicated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself and for the form of order sought to be set out unambiguously so that the Court does not rule ultra petita or fail to rule on a claim. 18. Admittedly, it is apparent from paragraphs 47 to 52 of the application at first instance that the appellant contested, in essence, the assessment of the evidence submitted before the Board of Appeal as regards the distinctive character of the earlier mark, based on the alleged absence of a global assessment of the evidence. The appellant thereby merely provides an overall criticism of the Board of Appeal’s decision, without setting out specifically the reasons why the assessment of the evidence submitted before the Board of Appeal is incorrect. It follows that the essential elements of fact and of law on which the application is based are not sufficiently coherently and comprehensibly apparent from the application itself. The General Court was therefore fully entitled to find that that reasoning did not meet the requirements of clarity and precision laid down in Article 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. 19. Consequently, the third part of the single ground of appeal must be rejected as being, in part, ineffective and, in part, manifestly unfounded. Conclusion It follows from the foregoing that the present appeal must be dismissed in its entirety as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded.’ 6 On the same grounds as those stated by the Advocate General in points 1 to 7 and 9 to 19 of her proposal, the present appeal must be dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded. Costs 7 Under Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to the procedure on appeal pursuant to Article 184(1) of those rules, a decision as to costs is to be given in the order which closes the proceedings. Since the present order was adopted before the appeal was served on the respondent and therefore before the latter could have incurred costs, Chefaro Ireland must be ordered to bear its own costs. On those grounds, the Court (Ninth Chamber) hereby orders: 1. The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded. 2. Chefaro Ireland DAC shall bear its own costs. Luxembourg, 2 May 2019. A. Calot Escobar K. Jürimäe Registrar President of the Ninth Chamber * Language of the case: English.