Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 23 April 2020 — Neoperl v EUIPO

(Case C‑14/20 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 — 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. 9)

2.      Appeal — Preliminary admission scheme — Request that the 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. 170a and 170b)

(see paras 10-12)

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 13, 15-18)

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. 14)

Operative part

1. The appeal is not allowed to proceed.

2. Neoperl AG shall bear its own costs.