This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62023CO0361
Order of the Court of 11 October 2023.
Tinnus Enterprises LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
Appeal – Community design – Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed.
Case C-361/23 P.
Order of the Court of 11 October 2023.
Tinnus Enterprises LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office.
Appeal – Community design – Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed.
Case C-361/23 P.
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2023:779
Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 11 October 2023 –
Tinnus Enterprises v EUIPO
(Case C‑361/23 P) ( 1 )
(Appeal – Community design – Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Refusal to allow the appeal 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, Art. 170b) (see paragraph 13) |
|
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 and 170b) (see paragraphs 14-16) |
|
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 – 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 and 170b) (see paragraphs 17, 24, 25) |
|
4. |
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 – Issue that has not been examined by 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 and 170b) (see paragraph 18) |
|
5. |
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 – Review by the Court of the assessment of the facts and evidence – Precluded (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a and 170b) (see paragraphs 19-20) |
|
6. |
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 – Conflict with the case-law of the Court of Justice or of the General 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 and 170b) (see paragraphs 21-23) |
Operative part
|
1. |
The appeal is not allowed to proceed. |
|
2. |
Tinnus Enterprises LLC shall bear its own costs. |
( 1 ) OJ C 950, 27.11.2023.