Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 28 September 2022 – the airscreen company v EUIPO
(Case C‑320/22 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 failing to demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Appeal not allowed to proceed)
1.      Appeal – 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.      Appeal – 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.      Appeal – 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 an appeal be allowed to proceed failing to demonstrate that the issue is significant – Appeal not allowed 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 15-18)
Operative part
1.
The appeal is not allowed to proceed.
2.
the airscreen company GmbH & Co. KG shall bear its own costs.