Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 January 2019 — CeramTec v EUIPO

(Case C‑463/18 P)

(Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Three-dimensional mark in the shape of a part of a prosthetic hip — Mark consisting in a shade of pink — Withdrawal of applications for declarations of invalidity and closure of the invalidity proceedings — Action of the proprietor of the mark seeking the annulment of decisions closing proceedings — Action declared to be inadmissible by the Board of Appeal)

| 1. | Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Interest in bringing proceedings — Need for an actual and current interest — Assessment at the time when the action was lodged — Action not capable of securing a benefit for the applicant — Inadmissibility  (Art. 263, fourth para., TFEU)  (see paras 5, 15) |

| 2. | Appeal — Grounds — Incorrect assessment of the facts and evidence — Inadmissibility — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted  (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)  (see paras 5, 15) |

| 3. | Appeal — Grounds — Specific criticism of a point of the General Court’s reasoning necessary  (Art. 256(1), second para, TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 168(1)(d) and 169(2))  (see paras 5, 15) |

| 4. | Appeal — Grounds — Inadequate statement of reasons — Reliance by the General Court on implied reasoning — Lawfulness — Conditions  (Art. 256(1), second para., TFEU; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 36)  (see paras 5, 15) |

Operative part

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded. |

| 2. | CeramTec GmbH shall bear its own costs. |

[Top](#document1)