Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Case T‑748/18

Glimarpol sp. z o.o.

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office

Order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber), 18 September 2019

(Community design — Registered Community design representing pneumatic power tools — Invalidity proceedings — Intervention by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal — Expiry of the time limit within which to intervene under Article 173 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Refusal to grant leave to intervene under that provision — Application, in the alternative, for leave to intervene under Article 143 of the Rules of Procedure made within the time limit — Whether permissible)

1. Judicial proceedings — Intervention — Admissibility criteria — Interest in the result of the case — Definition — Need for a direct and existing interest — Interest which must lead to a solution to the dispute such as to affect the legal position of the applicant

   (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40, second para.)

   (see paragraphs 14, 15)
2. Judicial proceedings — Intervention — Admissibility criteria — Interest in the result of the case — One party to the proceedings before EUIPO exceeding the time limit referred to in Article 179 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Not possible to intervene under Article 173 of the Rules of Procedure — No effect on the possibility of intervening on the basis of Articles 142 to 145 of the Rules of Procedure

   (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40, second para., and Art. 53, first para; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Arts. 142 to 145, 173 and 179)

   (see paragraphs 17-21)

Résumé

In its order of 18 September 2019, Glimarpol v EUIPO — Metar (Pneumatic power tools) (T‑748/18), the Court granted leave to intervene to Metar sp. z o.o., the applicant for a declaration of invalidity of the registered design representing pneumatic power tools, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Thus, the intervener’s rights will be those referred to in Articles 142 to 145 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, with the result that Metar sp. z o.o. will be able to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

In that regard, the Court held that the intervener, which was a party to the proceedings before EUIPO, and which had been successful before the departments of EUIPO, had a direct, existing interest in the result of the case.

According to the Court, the fact that the intervener lost the opportunity to be an intervener under Article 173 of the Rules of Procedure due to the expiry of the time limit referred to in Article 179, does not preclude it from intervening on the basis of Articles 142 to 145, provided that the conditions set out to that end are met.

The Court recalled that Article 173(3) of the Rules of Procedure confers, on the parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal other than the applicant, the same procedural rights as on the main parties. That provision thus derogates from the fourth paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, according to which the claims in the application to intervene must be limited to supporting the form of order sought by one of the main parties. Interveners pursuant to Article 173 of the Rules of Procedure may not only support the form of order sought by a main party, but also apply for a form of order and put forward pleas in law independent of those of the main parties.

However, according to the Court, the fact that a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal has lost the opportunity to exercise, or has waived the exercise of, strengthened procedural rights in accordance with the provisions of Article 173 of the Rules of Procedure does not mean that it may not be granted leave to intervene under the combined provisions of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Articles 142 to 145 of the Rules of Procedure in so far as that party establishes an interest in the result of the case. It cannot be concluded that, in proceedings relating to intellectual property rights, being a party to the proceedings before EUIPO — and the concomitant possibility of benefiting from a procedural position equivalent to those of the main parties under Article 173 of the Rules of Procedure — excludes the opportunity to intervene in accordance with Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Articles 142 to 145 of the Rules of Procedure, if the party concerned has not been granted leave to intervene in accordance with Article 173 of the Rules of Procedure due to the expiry of the time limit referred to in Article 179. In that regard, the Court pointed out that the procedural rights which an intervener has under Articles 142 to 145 of the Rules of Procedure are much more limited than those provided for in Article 173(3). Since these are therefore two different intervention regimes, the application of Articles 142 to 145 of the Rules of Procedure to the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal is compatible with the specific features of proceedings relating to intellectual property rights and does not constitute a circumvention of the time limit set out in Article 179 of the Rules of Procedure.

[Top](#document1)