EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019CO0660
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may succeed) of 19 November 2019.
Klaus Nonnemacher 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-660/19 P.
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may succeed) of 19 November 2019.
Klaus Nonnemacher 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-660/19 P.
Court reports – general – 'Information on unpublished decisions' section
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2019:996
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 19 November 2019 — Nonnemacher v EUIPO
(Case C‑660/19 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 — System whereby the Court determines whether an appeal should be allowed to proceed — Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Burden of proof (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b) (see para. 11) |
2. |
Appeal — System whereby the Court determines whether an appeal should be allowed to proceed — Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed — Formal requirements — Scope (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b) (see paras 12-14) |
3. |
Appeal — System whereby the Court determines whether an appeal should be allowed to proceed —Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to demonstrate the significance of the issue — Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b) (see paras 15, 16, 18, 19) |
4. |
Appeal — System whereby the Court determines whether an appeal should be allowed to proceed — Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Issue not examined by the Court — Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to demonstrate the significance of the issue — Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170b) (see para. 17) |
Operative part
1. |
The appeal is not allowed to proceed. |
2. |
Mr Klaus Nonnemacher shall bear his own costs. |