62019CO0715_INF
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 12 December 2019 — Guiral Broto v EUIPO
(Case C‑715/19 P)
(Appeal — EU trade mark — Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed — Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Request for the appeal to be allowed to proceed not demonstrating that the issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Appeal not allowed 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. 8)
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, Art. 170b)
(see paras 9, 10)
3.
Appeal — Preliminary admission scheme — Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Inadequate or contradictory grounds —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 para. 11)
4.
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 12-14)
Operative part
1.
The appeal is not allowed to proceed.
2.
Mr Ramón Guiral Broto is ordered to bear his own costs.