ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber)
25 January 2024 (*)
(Procedure – Taxation of costs – Manifest inadmissibility)
In Case T‑601/21 DEP II,
Pharmadom, established in Boulogne-Billancourt (France), represented by M.‑P. Dauquaire, lawyer,
applicant,
v
European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO),
defendant,
the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, being
Wellstat Therapeutics Corp., established in Rockville, Maryland (United States), represented by M. Graf, lawyer,
THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber),
composed of F. Schalin, President, P. Škvařilová-Pelzl (Rapporteur) and I. Nõmm, Judges,
Registrar: V. Di Bucci,
having regard to the judgment of 9 November 2022, Pharmadom v EUIPO – Wellstat Therapeutics (WELLMONDE) (T‑601/21, not published, EU:T:2022:687),
makes the following
Order
1 By its application, based on Article 170 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the intervener, Wellstat Therapeutics Corp., requests that the Court set at EUR 3 275 the amount of recoverable costs to be paid by the applicant, Pharmadom, in respect of the costs which it incurred in the proceedings in Case T‑601/21.
Background
2 By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 20 September 2021 and registered under Case T‑601/21, the applicant, Pharmadom, brought an action for annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 June 2021 (Case R 1776/2020-5), relating to opposition proceedings between the intervener and the applicant.
3 The intervener, Wellstat Therapeutics Corp., supported the form of order sought by EUIPO, namely that the action should be dismissed, and contended that the applicant should be ordered to pay the costs.
4 By a judgment of 9 November 2022, Pharmadom v EUIPO – Wellstat Therapeutics (WELLMONDE) (T‑601/21, not published, EU:T:2022:687), the Court dismissed the action and ordered the applicant to pay the costs incurred by EUIPO and the intervener.
5 By document lodged at the Court Registry on 1 August 2023, the intervener submitted, pursuant to Article 170 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, an application for taxation of costs, by which it requests that the Court set the recoverable amount to be reimbursed by the applicant at EUR 3 275, in respect of the costs relating to the case in the main proceedings.
6 By letter of 2 March 2023, the intervener informed the applicant that the total amount of recoverable costs was EUR 3 275.
Forms of order sought
7 The intervener contends that the Court should:
– set the amount of recoverable costs, to be reimbursed by the applicant, at EUR 3 275 in respect of the main proceedings.
8 The applicant claims that the Court should:
– dismiss the application for taxation of costs as inadmissible.
Law
9 Under Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure, where the action is manifestly inadmissible, the General Court may decide to give a decision by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings.
10 In this instance, the Court considers that it has sufficient information available to it from the material in the file and has decided, pursuant to that article, to give a decision without taking further steps in the proceedings.
11 Under Article 170(3) of the Rules of Procedure, if there is a dispute concerning the costs to be recovered, the Court, on application by the party concerned, is to make an order, from which no appeal lies, after giving the party concerned by the application an opportunity to submit its observations.
12 It follows from that provision that it is necessary to examine the existence of a dispute regarding the costs to be recovered prior to the lodging of the application for taxation of costs (see order of 17 August 2023, L. Oliva Torras v EUIPO – Mecánica del Frío (Vehicle couplings), T‑652/21 DEP, not published, EU:T:2023:476, paragraph 10 and the case-law cited).
13 Furthermore, according to the case-law, it cannot be that a dispute for the purposes of Article 170 of the Rules of Procedure can be deemed to arise only when the party who has been requested to reimburse the costs advanced by the successful party provides an explicit, comprehensive refusal. If that were so, it would be sufficient for a party to proceedings who has been ordered to pay the costs incurred by the other party to refrain from engaging in any reaction or use delaying tactics in order to make it impossible to lodge an application for taxation of costs pursuant to the abovementioned article. That would render nugatory the procedure provided for in that article, which serves to achieve a definitive ruling on the costs of the proceedings (see, to that effect, order of 26 October 2017, Haw Par v EUIPO – Cosmowell (GELENKGOLD), T‑25/16 DEP, not published, EU:T:2017:774, paragraph 11 and the case-law cited).
14 In the present case, as stated in paragraph 6 above, the intervener informed the applicant that the amount of recoverable costs was EUR 3 275.
15 However, a first application for taxation of costs regarding the same costs had been submitted on 17 February 2023.
16 By order of 26 July 2023, Pharmadom v EUIPO – Wellstat Therapeutics (WELLMONDE) (T‑601/21 DEP, not published, EU:T:2023:453), the Court dismissed that first application for taxation of costs as inadmissible.
17 The present application for taxation of costs was submitted on 1 August 2023.
18 Since the applicant became aware of the conclusion of the proceedings relating to the first application for taxation of costs only on 26 July 2023, and since it was legitimate for it to refrain from making a payment pending the conclusion of those proceedings, it must be concluded that it was not able to express its views on the costs claimed by the intervener and its conduct cannot therefore be regarded as dilatory.
19 Consequently, it is not apparent from the documents in the file that, on the date on which the intervener requested that the Court give a ruling, there was a dispute between the parties as to the amount of the recoverable costs or as to the liquidation thereof.
20 It follows that the present application for taxation of costs must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber)
hereby orders:
The application for taxation of costs is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
Luxembourg, 25 January 2024.