Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 11 February 2020 — Rutzinger-Kurpas v EUIPO

(Case C‑887/19 P)

(Appeal — EU trade mark — Whether appeals may be allowed to proceed — Article 170b of the Court’s Rules of Procedure — Request failing to demonstrate a significant issue of law 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  (Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b)  (see para. 9) |

| 2. | Appeal — Preliminary admission scheme — Request that an appeal be allowed to proceed — Formal requirements — Scope  (Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170a and 170b)  (see paras 10-12) |

| 3. | 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 — Appeal not allowed to proceed  (Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170a and 170b)  (see paras 13, 15-18) |

| 4. | Appeal — Preliminary admission scheme — Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Not included  (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statue of the Court of Justice, Arts 58, first para., and 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b)  (see para. 14) |

Operative part

| 1. | The appeal is not allowed to proceed. |

| 2. | Ms Susanne Rutzinger-Kurpas shall bear her own costs. |

[Top](#document1)