{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-766-25-p","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-766-25-p)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-11-02","fingerprint":"ewai:eu:f6410a","proof":"sha256:6e9e5c53fea4eef0f880de0b3750fab40f24a17de5cd9eec3acc8489140c9dc8","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"eu:c-766-25-p","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34"],"kind":"front_matter"},{"title":"Findings of the Court","paragraphs":["para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"Costs","paragraphs":["para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59"],"kind":"costs"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"ORDER OF THE COURT (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed)","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"24 March 2026 ( * )","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"( 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 )","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"In Case C‑766/25 P,","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 27 November 2025,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"Capella EOOD, established in Sofia (Bulgaria), represented by A. Auer-Reinsdorff, Rechtsanwältin,","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"appellant,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"the other parties to the proceedings being:","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO),","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"defendant at first instance,","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"Richemont International SA, established in Villars-sur-Glâne (Switzerland),","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"intervener at first instance,","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"THE COURT (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed),","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"composed of T. von Danwitz, Vice-President of the Court, J. Passer and E. Regan (Rapporteur), Judges,","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"having regard to the proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona,","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"makes the following","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"Order","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"1         By its appeal, Capella EOOD seeks to have set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 October 2025, Capella v EUIPO – Richemont International (COLORATURA) (T‑562/24, ‘the judgment under appeal’, EU:T:2025:940), whereby the General Court dismissed its action seeki …","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"The request that the appeal be allowed to proceed","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"2         Under the first paragraph of Article 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, an appeal brought against a decision of the General Court concerning a decision of an independent board of appeal of EUIPO is not to proceed unless the Court of Justice first decides that it should be allowed to do so.","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"3         The third paragraph of Article 58a of that statute provides that an appeal is to be allowed to proceed, wholly or in part, in accordance with the detailed rules set out in the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where it raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law.","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"4         Under Article 170a(1) of the Rules of Procedure, in the situations referred to in the first paragraph of Article 58a of that statute, the appellant is to annex to the appeal a request that the appeal be allowed to proceed, setting out the issue raised by the appeal that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law and containing all the information necessary to enable the Court to rule on that request.","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"5         In accordance with Article 170b(1) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court’s decision on the request that the appeal be allowed to proceed is to be taken as soon as possible in the form of a reasoned order.","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"Arguments of the appellant","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"6         In support of its request that the appeal be allowed to proceed, the appellant submits that its single ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 34 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1), raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency and development of EU law.","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"7         In the first place, the appellant submits that it is apparent from the judgment of 27 February 2024, EUIPO v The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann (C‑382/21 P, EU:C:2024:172), that the Court has already recognised, in so far as concerns Community designs, that the right of priority raises an …","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"8         In the second place, the appellant criticises the General Court for erring in law, in paragraph 36 of the judgment under appeal, since it based its reasoning, in proceedings concerning relative grounds for refusal of registration of an EU trade mark, on judgment of 25 June 2015, Copernicus …","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"9         In the third place, the appellant argues that the General Court erred in law, in paragraphs 53 to 71 of the judgment under appeal, by incorrectly interpreting the concept of ‘first application’ within the meaning of Article 34(4) of Regulation 2017/1001, read in conjunction with Article 34 …","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"10       In the fourth place, the appellant maintains that, in paragraph 66 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court has not complied with its own case-law, as set out in the judgment of 15 November 2001, Signal Communications v OHIM (TELEYE) (T‑128/99, EU:T:2001:266, paragraph 42), in which, …","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"11       In the fifth place, the appellant argues that the General Court erred in law, in paragraphs 64 to 69 of the judgment under appeal, in so far as it relies, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the conditions laid down in Article 34(4) of Regulation 2017/1001 have been met, on German proce …","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"12       In the sixth place, the appellant maintains that, in paragraphs 50, 54 and 60 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court, failing to comply with the case-law established in the judgment of 27 February 2024, EUIPO v The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann (C‑382/21 P, EU:C:2024:172, paragrap …","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"13       In the seventh place, the appellant is of the opinion that the General Court erred in law, in paragraph 36 of the judgment under appeal, by finding – failing to have regard to its own case-law, as set out in the judgment of 15 November 2001, Signal Communications v OHIM (TELEYE) (T‑128/99, …","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"14       In the eighth and last place, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law, in paragraphs 60 and 61 of the judgment under appeal, in that it adopted reasoning based on an absolute ground for refusal for registration of an EU trade mark, whereas the opposition proceedings are ba …","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"Findings of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"15       As a preliminary point, it must be borne in mind that it is for the appellant to demonstrate that the issues raised by its appeal are significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law (orders of 10 December 2021, EUIPO v The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann , C‑382/21 P, EU:C:2021:1050, paragraph 20, and of 14 January 2026, Gómez Jiménez and Others v EUIPO , C‑665/25 P, EU:C:2026:23, paragraph 10).","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"16       Furthermore, as is apparent from the third paragraph of Article 58a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, read together with Article 170a(1) and Article 170b(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the request that an appeal be allowed to proceed must contain all the informati …","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"17       Accordingly, a request that an appeal be allowed to proceed must, in any event, set out clearly and in detail the grounds on which the appeal is based, identify with equal clarity and detail the issue of law raised by each ground of appeal, specify whether that issue is significant with res …","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"18       A request that an appeal be allowed to proceed which does not contain the information referred to in the preceding paragraph of the present order cannot be capable of demonstrating that the appeal raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of E …","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"19       In the present case, as regards the line of argument set out in paragraph 7 above, it must be found that, in that line of argument, the appellant does not identify the paragraphs of the judgment under appeal which it intends to criticise and does not rely on an error of law. It merely, in e …","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"20       As regards the line of argument set out in paragraph 8 above, it must be found that, although the appellant identifies an error of law allegedly made by the General Court by referring to the disputed paragraphs of the judgment under appeal, it simply, in that respect, puts forward arguments …","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"21       As regards the line of argument set out in paragraph 9 above, it should be noted that the appellant criticises the General Court, in essence, for incorrectly interpreting Article 34(4) of Regulation 2017/1001, which lays down the cumulative conditions which a national trade mark application …","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"22       As regards the line of argument in paragraphs 11 and 14 above, it is sufficient to recall that, in accordance with the burden of proof which lies with an appellant requesting that an appeal be allowed to proceed, the appellant must demonstrate that, independently of the issues of law invoke …","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"23       As regards the line of argument set out in paragraph 12 above, in so far as the appellant relies on the General Court’s failure to have regard to the case-law of the Court of Justice, it must be found that, although it identifies the disputed paragraphs of the judgment under appeal and the …","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"24       As regards, lastly, the line of argument set out in paragraphs 10 and 13 above, by which the appellant relies on, in essence, a failure, by the General Court, to have regard to its own case-law, it suffices to recall that such a line argument is not, in itself, sufficient to establish, in a …","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"25       In those circumstances, it must be held that the request that the appeal be allowed to proceed submitted by the appellant is not such as to establish that that appeal raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law.","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"26       In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the appeal should not be allowed to proceed.","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"Costs","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"27       Under Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to proceedings on appeal pursuant to Article 184(1) of those rules, a decision as to costs is to be given in the order which closes the proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"28       Since the present order was adopted before the appeal was served on the other parties to the proceedings and, therefore, before they could have incurred costs, it is appropriate to decide that the appellant is to bear its own costs.","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"On those grounds, the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) hereby orders:","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"1.       The appeal is not allowed to proceed.","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"2.       Capella EOOD shall bear its own costs.","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"Luxembourg, 24 March 2026.","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"A. Calot Escobar","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"T. von Danwitz","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"Registrar","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"President of the Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"*       Language of the case: English.","paragraph_id":"para_59"}],"word_count":3870,"cites":["C-766/25","T-562/24","C-382/21","T-186/12","T-128/99","C-665/25","C-613/19","C-605/22","C-610/25","C-32/25"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"6e00c1a78aeb5b140a8f5726dceb7c24b54c6db07a5528463d67fa3528de1cbc","source_url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62025CO0766","fetched_at":"2026-10-06T06:36:20.992+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-766-25-p","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-766-25-p","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-766-25-p","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-766-25-p","verification_scope":{"stored_hash_is_source_verification":false,"official_source_comparison":"not_performed","legal_review":"not_assessed"},"decision_object":{"schema_version":"1","object_id":"decision:eu:c-766-25-p","judgment_class":"E","operative_part":"not_in_register","cites_count":10,"word_count":3870,"decision_url":null},"agent_links":{"agent_root":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/agent.json","agent_overview":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/rapid/agent/overview"}},"hash":"sha256:6e9e5c53fea4eef0f880de0b3750fab40f24a17de5cd9eec3acc8489140c9dc8","version":"legal-2026-11-02","expires":"2026-11-04T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-11-02+legal-2026-11-02+2026-11-02T16:22:18","content_hash":"sha256:6e9e5c53fea4eef0f880de0b3750fab40f24a17de5cd9eec3acc8489140c9dc8","revalidate_after":"2026-11-03T04:20:56.488Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-766-25-p","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-766-25-p"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-766-25-p"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-766-25-p"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=eu"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/eu/praxis/c-766-25-p","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-a771cfc5c856886db9be4574e056bf25","response_hash":"sha256:6e9e5c53fea4eef0f880de0b3750fab40f24a17de5cd9eec3acc8489140c9dc8"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"stable","as_of":"2026-11-03T03:20:56.641Z","valid_for":604800,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu%3Ac-766-25-p&view=full","note":"Oföränderligt objekt med hash. Får cachas länge.","tokens":5437}}