Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 23 April 2020 — Rubik’s Brand v EUIPO
(Case C‑936/19 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. 12)
2. Appeal — Preliminary admission scheme — Request that the appeal be allowed to proceed — Formal requirements — Scope
(Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170a and 170b)
(see paras 13-15, 22)
3. 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 — Appeal not allowed to proceed
(Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170a and 170b)
(see paras 16, 17, 19-21)
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
(Statue of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 170a and 170b)
(see para. 18)
Operative part
1. | | The appeal is not allowed to proceed. |
2. | | Rubik’s Brand Ltd shall bear its own costs. |