ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber)
13 September 2012(*)
(Application initiating proceedings – Formal requirements – Manifest inadmissibility)
In Case T‑187/12,
Uwe Bäßler, residing in Gmunden (Austria), represented by M., lawyer,
applicant,
v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM),
defendant,
Action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 February 2012 (Case R 0909/2011-1), concerning an application for registration of word sign MAX as a Community trade mark,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber),
Composed of I. Pelikánová, President, K. Jürimäe and M. van der Woude, Judges,
Registrar : E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
Procedure and form of order sought by the applicants
1 By application lodged at the Registry of the Court on 30 April 2012, the applicant brought the present action.
2 The applicant claims that the Court should:
– annul the contested decision;
– order the defendant to pay the costs.
Law
3 Under Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure, where the action is manifestly inadmissible the Court may, without taking further steps in the proceedings, give a decision on the action by reasoned order.
4 Furthermore, under Article 44, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Procedure, for the purposes of the proceedings, the application shall state an address for service in the place where the General Court has its seat and the name of the person who is authorised and has expressed willingness to accept service. In addition to or instead of specifying an address for service as referred to in the first subparagraph, the application may state that the lawyer or agent agrees that service is to be effected on him by telefax or other technical means of communication. If the application does not comply with the requirements referred to in the first and second subparagraphs, all service on the party concerned for the purposes of the proceedings shall be effected, for so long as the defect has not been cured, by registered letter addressed to the agent or lawyer of that party. By way of derogation from the first paragraph of Article 100, service shall then be deemed to have been duly effected by the lodging of the registered letter at the post office of the place where the General Court has its seat.
5 Under Article 44, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Procedure, the lawyer acting for a party must lodge at the Registry a certificate that he is authorised to practise before a Court of a Member State or of another State which is a party to the EEA Agreement.
6 In addition, under Article 44, paragraph 6, of the Rules of Procedure, if an application does not comply with the requirements set out in paragraph 3, the Registrar shall prescribe a reasonable period within which the applicant is to comply with them by producing the above-mentioned document. In case of failure to do as requested, the General Court shall decide whether the non-compliance with these conditions renders the application formally inadmissible.
7 In the present case, the General Court considers that it has sufficient information from the documents in the file and has decided, pursuant to the articles referred to above, to give a decision without taking further steps in the proceedings.
8 The Court notes that on three occasions, namely on 18 May, 6 June and 2 July 2012, the Registrar prescribed by registered letter a reasonable period for producing the certificate of the lawyer's authorization to practise, and for stating an address for service. The Court further notes that the three registered letters, sent at the address quoted in the application as the address of the lawyer, have been returned to the Court with the following notice of the post office: "addressee unknown at the indicated address". A copy of the third letter had been sent by the Registrar to the applicant, for information.
9 In consequence, the application does not satisfy the minimum requirements of Article 44, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Procedure. In addition, for lack of any reliable address for service, and the lawyer remaining unreachable, the service cannot be duly effected.
10 Il follows from the above considerations that the present action must be rejected as manifestly inadmissible on formal grounds.
Costs
11 As the present order was adopted prior to service of the application on the defendant and before the latter could have incurred costs, it is sufficient to decide that the applicant must bear its own costs pursuant to Article 87 (1) of the Rules of Procedure.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber)
hereby orders :
1) The action is dismissed as inadmissible
2) The applicant shall bear its own costs.
Luxembourg, 13 September 2012.