EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62021CO0785
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 5 April 2022.
Wolfgang Kappes v Sedus Stoll AG and 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 – Appeal not allowed to proceed.
Case C-785/21 P.
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 5 April 2022.
Wolfgang Kappes v Sedus Stoll AG and 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 – Appeal not allowed to proceed.
Case C-785/21 P.
Court reports – general
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2022:301
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 5 April 2022 – Kappes v Sedus Stoll and EUIPO
(Case C‑785/21 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 – Appeal not allowed to proceed)
|
1. |
Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals 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, Arts 170a(1) and 170b) (see para. 14) |
|
2. |
Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Request that an appeal be allowed to proceed – Formal requirements – Scope (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a(1) and 170b) (see paras 15-17) |
|
3. |
Appeal – Scheme for prior determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Incompatibility with the case-law of the Court – Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed failing to demonstrate that the issue is significant – Appeal not allowed to proceed (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a (1) and 170b) (see paras 18, 19) |
Operative part
|
1. |
The appeal is not allowed to proceed. |
|
2. |
Mr Wolfgang Kappes shall bear his own costs. |