Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Case T‑583/15

Monster Energy Company

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

‛EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a peace symbol — Application for restitutio in integrum — Non-compliance with the time limit for bringing an action before the General Court’

Summary — Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber), 8 June 2016

1. EU trade mark — Procedural provisions — Statement of reasons for decisions

   (Art. 296 TFEU; Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 75, first sentence)
2. Actions for annulment — Admissibility criteria — Jurisdiction of the EU judicature — Considered of Court’s own motion

   (Arts 256 and 263 TFEU)
3. EU trade mark — Appeals procedure — Action before the EU judicature — Action brought out of time against a decision of a Board of Appeal — May not benefit from restitutio in integrum

   (Art. 263 TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 45, second para.)

1. See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 33)
2. The provisions of Articles 256 and 263 TFEU provide that the General Court is to review the legality of acts of bodies, offices or agencies of the Union intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties, subject to conditions for admissibility, relating in particular to the fact that the proceedings must be instituted within two months of the publication of the measure, or of its notification to the applicant, or, in the absence thereof, of the day on which it came to the knowledge of the latter, as the case may be. Admissibility is one of the criteria for an action which falls within the jurisdiction of the Court, particularly because it must examine it of its own motion.

   (see para. 42)
3. It is not Article 81 of Regulation No 207/2009 relating to restitutio in integrum which applies in circumstances where an action brought before the General Court against a decision of a Board of Appeal of EUIPO may be regarded as out of time by the Court, but the provisions applicable to the Court, namely, in addition to Article 263 TFEU, the second paragraph of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, according to which ‘no right shall be prejudiced in consequence of the expiry of a time limit if the party concerned proves the existence of unforeseeable circumstances or of force majeure’.

   Judicial procedure is not, moreover, from the outset divided into two parts, as is provided for in Article 81 of Regulation No 207/2009, with, first, an action being brought and, secondly, the filing of an application for restitutio in integrum on which the Court would rule separately in order to assess whether the action is admissible in the light of the time limit for bringing that action. It is within the very context of the proceedings initiated after an action has been brought that the admissibility of that action is in principle examined and it is only if a plea of inadmissibility requesting that the Court rule in that regard without going to the substance of the case is brought before the Court or if the Court raises, in that regard, of its own motion an absolute bar to proceeding, that it may give a separate ruling as to admissibility and then rule on the substance if it nevertheless accepts that the action is admissible.

   (see paras 45, 46)

[Top](#document1)