This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019CO0893
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 12 March 2020.
Roxtec AB v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
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 demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed.
Case C-893/19 P.
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 12 March 2020.
Roxtec AB v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
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 demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed.
Case C-893/19 P.
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2020:209
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 12 March 2020 — Roxtec v EUIPO
(Case C‑893/19 P)
(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 demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed)
|
1. |
Appeal — Preliminary admission scheme — Significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law — Burden of proof (Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b) (see para. 11) |
|
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. 170b) (see paras 12-14) |
|
3. |
Appeal — Preliminary admission scheme — Significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law — Inconsistent with the case-law of the Court — Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to show the significance of the issue — Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed (Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b) (see paras 15, 16) |
|
4. |
Appeal — Preliminary admission scheme — Significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law — Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence — Precluded (Art. 256(1) TFEU; Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para., and 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b) (see para. 17) |
|
5. |
Appeal — Preliminary admission scheme — Significant issue with respect to the unity, consistency or development of Union law — Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to show the significance of the issue —Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed (Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b) (see paras 18-23) |
Operative part
|
1. |
The appeal is not allowed to proceed. |
|
2. |
Roxtec AB shall bear its own costs. |