Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)

12 July 2019(*)

(Action for annulment — Article 173(1) of the Rules of Procedure — Intervention by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal — Response lodged via e-Curia — Article 56a(4) of the Rules of Procedure — Failure to fulfil procedural requirements — Manifestly inadmissible)

In Case T-105/19,

Louis Vuitton Malletier, established in Paris (France), represented by P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, N. Parrotta and F. Rossi, lawyers,

applicant,

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by V. Ruzek and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents,

defendant,

the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, being

Norbert Wisniewski, residing in Warsaw (Poland), represented by J. Aftyka, lawyer,

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 November 2018 (Case R 274/2017-2), relating to cancellation proceedings between Norbert Wisniewski and Louis Vuitton Malletier,

THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber),

composed of V. Tomljenović, President, E. Bieliūnas and A. Kornezov (Rapporteur), Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

 Procedure and form of order sought by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO

1        By response lodged at the Court Registry on 7 May 2019, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, Norbert Wisniewski, applied to participate in the proceedings.

2        The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO claims that the Court should:

–        dismiss the application;

–        order the applicant to pay the costs.

 Law

3        Under Article 173(1) of the Rules of Procedure, a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal other than the applicant may participate, as intervener, in the proceedings before the Court by responding to the application in the manner and within the time limit prescribed.

4        Under Article 56a(4) of the Rules of Procedure, if a procedural document is lodged via e-Curia before the supporting documents required for validation of the access account have been produced, those supporting documents must be received in paper format at the Registry of the General Court within 10 days of the procedural document being lodged. This time limit may not be extended and Article 60 of the Rules of Procedure does not apply. If the supporting documents are not received within the prescribed time limit, the Court is to declare the procedural document lodged via e-Curia to be inadmissible.

5        In that regard, it must be noted that, on 7 May 2019, a response was lodged via e-Curia before the supporting documents required for validation of the access account had been produced.

6        The supporting documents were received at the Court Registry in paper format on 14 May 2019.

7        As expressly stated in the Conditions of Use of e-Curia, note of which was declared to have been taken by the representative of the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO during the procedure for activating the e-Curia account under the special procedure, the representative was required to complete the account request form online, to print it, date it, sign it by hand and to send the paper version by registered post or have it physically delivered to the Court Registry, together with the necessary supporting documents.

8        In the present case, the e-Curia account request form received at the Court Registry was not accompanied by all the necessary supporting documents. A copy of the identity card or passport of the representative had not been produced.

9        On 21 May 2019, the Court Registry informed the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO that it had not lodged all the supporting documents within 10 days, as prescribed in Article 56a(4) of the Rules of Procedure, and asked it to submit observations on the non-compliance with that provision until the 31^st of May.

10      In its answer, registered on 24 May 2019, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO simply attached a copy of the identity card of its representative, without further explanations. More specifically, it did not rely on or prove the existence of unforeseeable circumstances or of force majeure such as to permit a derogation from the prescribed time limit on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, applicable to the proceedings before the General Court by virtue of Article 53(1) of the Statute.

11      It follows that the existence of unforeseeable circumstances or of force majeure has not been proved.

12      Consequently, the lodging of the response via e-Curia does not satisfy the requirements of Article 56a(4) of the Rules of Procedure.

13      It follows from the above considerations that the present response must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible, without there being any need for it to be served on the applicant and the defendant.

14      It follows from all of the foregoing that the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO did not submit a response in accordance with Article 173(1) of the Rules of Procedure. Consequently, it cannot be granted leave to participate in the proceedings in Case T‑105/19 as intervener under Article 173(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

 Costs

15      Under Article 133 of the Rules of Procedure, a decision as to costs is to be given in the judgment or order which closes the proceedings. Since the present order closes the proceedings as far as the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO is concerned, a decision must be given on the costs relating to its intervention.

16      Since the present order was made prior to service of the response on the applicant and the defendant and before the latter could have incurred costs connected with the procedural activity of the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, it is sufficient to decide that the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO must bear its own costs, in accordance with Article 133 of the Rules of Procedure.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)

hereby orders:

1.      The response is dismissed.

2.      Norbert Wisniewski is refused leave to participate in the proceedings in Case T‑105/19 as intervener under Article 173(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

3.      Norbert Wisniewski shall bear his own costs.

Luxembourg, 12 July 2019.

* Language of the case: English.

© European Union
The source of this judgment is the Europa web site. The information on this site is subject to a information found here: Important legal notice. This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment.