{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-824-25-p","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-824-25-p)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-11-02","fingerprint":"ewai:eu:f6410a","proof":"sha256:bb92d4ce176f7afe7bd345acc68f76595b084d7ae40c5f1677a3b42deef0fa69","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-824-25-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"],"kind":"front_matter"},{"title":"Findings of the Court","paragraphs":["para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"Costs","paragraphs":["para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55"],"kind":"costs"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"ORDER OF THE COURT (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed)","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"14 April 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‑824/25 P,","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 12 December 2025,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"Frutaria Innovation SL, established in Zaragoza (Spain), represented by M. Anadón Giménez and J. Learte Álvarez, abogados,","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":"Markus Schneider, residing in Bonn (Germany),","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, F. Schalin and M. Gavalec (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, R. Norkus,","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"makes the following","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"Order","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"1         By its appeal, Frutaria Innovation SL asks the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 15 October 2025, Frutaria Innovation v EUIPO – Schneider (Frutaria) (T‑381/24, ‘the contested judgment’, EU:T:2025:960), by which the General Court dismis …","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         In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 58a of that statute, 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 of Justice 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 the single ground of its appeal, alleging, in essence, infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) and of Article 2 TEU, raises issues that are significant with respect to the unity, consistency and development of EU law.","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"7         In the first place, the appellant claims, in essence, that the General Court erred in law, in paragraph 40 of the contested judgment, by giving an extensive interpretation to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94, based on the judgment of 26 April 2018, Pfalzmarkt für Obst und Gemüse v EU …","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"8         The appellant states that it is essential for the unity, consistency and development of EU law that all courts within the European Union apply EU law as it has been enacted by the EU legislature. It submits, in particular, that, by disregarding the clear wording of Article 7(1)(c) of Regul …","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"9         In the second place, the appellant submits that the General Court, while stating in the contested judgment that the assessment of the descriptive character of the mark at issue had to be made by reference to the date of 22 May 2007, nevertheless based its reasoning on the judgment of 26 Ap …","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"10       In that context, the appellant reiterates its claim that it is essential, with respect to the unity, consistency and development of EU law, that all courts within the European Union apply EU law as enacted by the EU legislature and interpret it in accordance with the case-law, without depar …","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"Findings of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"11       As a preliminary point, it must be recalled 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 3 February 2026, Guangzhou Wanglaoji Grand Health v EUIPO , C‑619/25 P, EU:C:2026:65, paragraph 16).","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"12       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_33"},{"text":"13       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_34"},{"text":"14       A request that an appeal be allowed to proceed which does not contain the information mentioned 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 EU …","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"15       In the present case, as regards, in the first place, the appellant’s arguments, summarised in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the present order, relating to an infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 and Article 2 TEU, it must be stated that the appellant merely asserts, first, that th …","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"16       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 invoked in its appeal, the appeal raises one or more issues that are significant with respect to the u …","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"17       Furthermore, as regards the appellant’s arguments relating to the infringement of the principles of the rule of law, legality, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, it should be noted that, without prejudice to the significant place occupied within the EU legal orde …","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"18       Furthermore, in so far as the appellant seeks, by those arguments, to call into question the General Court’s assessment of certain facts, such arguments cannot demonstrate that the appeal raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law (order of 8 March 2023, Hijos de Moisés Rodríguez González v EUIPO , C‑605/22 P, EU:C:2023:199, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited).","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"19       In the second place, as regards the arguments summarised in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the present order, by which the appellant alleges, in essence, that the General Court failed to have regard to the case-law of the Court of Justice and to its own case-law, it is sufficient to recall that suc …","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"20       In the third and last place, as regards the arguments relating to the General Court’s infringement of its obligation to state reasons, it must be borne in mind that, although, as is apparent from the case-law of the Court of Justice, a failure to state reasons or an inadequate statement of …","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"21       In those circumstances, the appellant’s request that the appeal be allowed to proceed is not capable of establishing that the appeal raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law.","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"22       In the light of the foregoing considerations, the appeal should not be allowed to proceed.","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"Costs","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"23       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_45"},{"text":"24       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_46"},{"text":"On those grounds, the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) hereby orders:","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"1.       The appeal is not allowed to proceed.","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"2.       Frutaria Innovation SL shall bear its own costs.","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"Luxembourg, 14 April 2026.","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"A. Calot Escobar","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"T. von Danwitz","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"Registrar","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"President of the Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"*       Language of the case: English.","paragraph_id":"para_55"}],"word_count":3188,"cites":["C-824/25","T-381/24","T-220/17","C-292/04","C-439/19","T-87/00","C-382/21","C-619/25","C-613/19","C-598/23","C-605/22","C-665/25"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"b0d65e0e03073673470c46ce668c20fe6af622085b8b00883dcdab90e8abba5e","source_url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62025CO0824","fetched_at":"2026-10-01T17:14:26.687+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-824-25-p","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-824-25-p","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-824-25-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-824-25-p","verification":{"stored_sha256":"b0d65e0e03073673470c46ce668c20fe6af622085b8b00883dcdab90e8abba5e","recomputed_sha256":"b0d65e0e03073673470c46ce668c20fe6af622085b8b00883dcdab90e8abba5e","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-11-03T05:31:15.639Z"},"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-824-25-p","judgment_class":"E","operative_part":"not_in_register","cites_count":12,"word_count":3188,"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:bb92d4ce176f7afe7bd345acc68f76595b084d7ae40c5f1677a3b42deef0fa69","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:bb92d4ce176f7afe7bd345acc68f76595b084d7ae40c5f1677a3b42deef0fa69","revalidate_after":"2026-11-03T06:31:18.303Z","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-824-25-p","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-824-25-p"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-824-25-p"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-824-25-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-824-25-p","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-da7dba3011c948114659fb819009fc0c","response_hash":"sha256:bb92d4ce176f7afe7bd345acc68f76595b084d7ae40c5f1677a3b42deef0fa69"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T05:31:18.451Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu%3Ac-824-25-p&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":5149}}