ORDER OF THE COURT (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed)

10 July 2019 ( )

(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 show that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law — Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed)

In Case C‑359/19 P,

APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 5 May 2019,

Meblo Trade d.o.o., established in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by A. Ivanova, avocat,

appellant,

the other parties to the proceedings being:

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO),

defendant at first instance,

Meblo Int, proizvodnja izdelkov za spanje d.o.o., established in Nova Gorica (Slovenia),

intervener at first instance,

THE COURT (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed),

composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, Vice-President, C. Toader, President of the Chamber, and A. Rosas, Judge-Rapporteur,

after hearing the Advocate General, M. Szpunar,

makes the following

Order

1 By its appeal, Meblo Trade d.o.o. asks the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 5 March 2019, Meblo Trade v EUIPO — Meblo Int (MEBLO) (T‑263/18, EU:T:2019:134; ‘the judgment under appeal’) by which the latter dismissed Meblo Trade’s action seeking the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 27 February 2018 (Case R 883/2017-4), concerning revocation proceedings between Meblo Trade and Meblo Int, proizvodnja izdelkov za spanje.

Determination as to whether the appeal should be allowed to proceed

2 Under Article 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, an appeal brought against a decision of the General Court concerning a decision of an independent board of appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office is not to proceed unless the Court of Justice first decides that it should be allowed to do so.

3 The third paragraph of Article 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union provides that an appeal is to be allowed to proceed, wholly or in part, in accordance with the detailed rules set out in the Rules of Procedure, where it raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law.

4 Paragraph 1 of Article 170a of the Rules of Procedure provides that the appellant is to annex to the appeal a request that the appeal be allowed to proceed, setting out the issue raised by the appeal that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law and containing all the information necessary to enable the Court of Justice to rule on that request.

5 In its appeal, the appellant relies on a single ground of appeal alleging that the General Court infringed Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1) when it verified whether the conditions for the genuine use, within the meaning of that provision, of an EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘meblo’ had been satisfied.

6 In support of its request that the appeal be allowed to proceed, the appellant submits that the appeal raises issues that are significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law concerning, in essence, the conditions for the genuine use of a trade mark that was the subject of a licence agreement concluded before that mark was filed.

7 In that regard, it must be found that, in its request that the appeal be allowed to proceed, the appellant merely restates, in essence, the arguments relied on in support of its appeal and fails to show in any way how the errors in law that allegedly vitiate the judgment under appeal raise issues that are significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law and justify allowing the appeal to proceed.

8 In the light of the findings above, the request that the appeal be allowed to proceed must be refused.

Costs

9 Under Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to proceedings 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.

10 In this instance, since the present order was adopted before the appeal was served on the other parties to the proceedings and, therefore, before they could have incurred costs, it is appropriate to decide that the appellant is to bear its own costs.

On those grounds, the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) hereby orders:

1. The appeal shall not be allowed to proceed.

2. Meblo Trade d.o.o. shall bear its own costs.

Luxembourg, 10 July 2019.





A. Calot Escobar R. Silva de Lapuerta