Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 26 November 2020 – Scorify v EUIPO
(Case C‑418/20 P)
(Appeal – EU trade mark – Prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Article 170b of the 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.      Appeal – Preliminary admission scheme – 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 para. 17)
2.      Appeal – Preliminary admission scheme – Request for an appeal to 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 paras 18-20)
3.      Appeal – Preliminary admission scheme – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Request for the appeal to be allowed to proceed not demonstrating 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, Art. 170b)
(see paras 21-26)
Operative part
1.
The appeal is not allowed to proceed.
2.
Scorify UAB shall bear its own costs.