62021CO0674_INF
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.