Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 19 December 2019 — Hauzenberger v EUIPO

(Case C‑696/19 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 — Appeal not allowed to proceed)

1.      Appeal — Preliminary admission scheme — 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. 13)

2.      Appeal — Preliminary admission scheme — Request for an appeal to 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 14-16)

3.      Appeal — Preliminary admission scheme — Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Request for the appeal to be allowed to proceed not demonstrating that the issue is significant — 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 17, 18, 20, 21)

4.      Appeal — Preliminary admission scheme — Issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law — Question that has not been examined by the Court — Request for the appeal to be allowed to proceed not demonstrating that the issue is significant — 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. 19)

Operative part

1. The appeal is not allowed to proceed.

2. Andreas Hauzenberger is ordered to bear his own costs.