Order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 17 October 2023 –
Kaminski v EUIPO

(Case C‑406/23 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 – 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, Arts 170a(1) and 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(1) 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(1) and 170b)

(see paragraphs 17, 19, 23, 24)

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(1) 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 – Conflict with the case-law of 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(1) and 170b)

(see paragraph 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 – Distortion of facts and evidence – Not included

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 170a(1) and 170b)

(see paragraph 21)

7.      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 – Inadequate or contradictory grounds – 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(1) and 170b)

(see paragraph 22)

Operative part

1. The appeal is not allowed to proceed.

2. Arkadiusz Kaminski shall bear his own costs.