{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-146-25-p","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-146-25-p)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-13","fingerprint":"ewai:eu:a03983","proof":"sha256:040264566409681ade48effc19b6835d03c67a0e01487d74bcb9e096244bfc34","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-146-25-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"],"kind":"front_matter"},{"title":"Findings of the Court","paragraphs":["para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"Costs","paragraphs":["para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58"],"kind":"costs"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"ORDER OF THE COURT (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed)","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"25 June 2025 ( * )","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‑146/25 P,","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 17 February 2025,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"Puma SE, established in Herzogenaurach (Germany), represented by M. Schunke and P. Trieb, Rechtsanwälte,","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"appellant,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"the other party 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":"THE COURT (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed)","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"composed of T. von Danwitz, Vice-President of the Court, N. Jääskinen and R. Frendo (Rapporteur), Judges,","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"having regard to the proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, R. Norkus,","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"makes the following","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"Order","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"1         By its appeal, Puma SE asks the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 December 2024, Puma v EUIPO – Li Puma (LaZZarO by Li Puma) (T‑11/24, ‘the judgment under appeal’, EU:T:2024:873), by which the General Court dismissed Puma’s action fo …","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"The request that the appeal be allowed to proceed","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"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_19"},{"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_20"},{"text":"4         Article 170a(1) of the Rules of Procedure provides that, 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_21"},{"text":"5         In accordance with Article 170b(1) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court is to rule as soon as possible on the request that the appeal be allowed to proceed, in the form of a reasoned order.","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"Arguments of the appellant","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"6         In support of its request that the appeal be allowed to proceed, the appellant submits that the grounds of its appeal, alleging infringement of Article 8(5) 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 …","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"7         In the first place, the appellant claims that the General Court’s reasoning is incomplete in so far as it failed to carry out a global and exhaustive assessment of the relevant factors, in order to determine whether there was a link, on the part of the relevant public, between the marks at …","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"8         In particular, the General Court failed to set out the reasons for which it considered that, for the purpose of determining whether that link exists, the dissimilarity of the goods and services at issue could not be offset by other factors, such as the strength of the earlier mark’s reputa …","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"9         According to the appellant, the lack of that analysis in the present case raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency and development of EU law, on account of its effects on the protection of highly reputed and highly distinctive marks; an issue which goes far beyond the scope of the present proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"10       In the second place, the appellant complains that the General Court erred in law by departing from the principle established by the Court of Justice in the judgment of 27 November 2008, Intel Corporation (C‑252/07, EU:C:2008:655, paragraphs 51 to 56), from which it follows that the greater …","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"11       In that regard, the appellant submits that trade marks that are highly reputed among the public are particularly at risk of third parties attempting to take unfair advantage of their reputation and distinctive character. Those marks should therefore benefit from increased protection to enco …","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"12       According to the appellant, that issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency and development of EU law, on account of the increased need to protect very highly reputed marks against unfair advantage being taken of their distinctive character and reputation, and of the need t …","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"13       In the third place, the appellant claims that the General Court failed to examine a factual element which it had submitted, namely the consumer survey carried out in Germany on 11 May 2018 by GfK SE, from which it is apparent that the relevant public establishes a link between the marks at …","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"14       According to the appellant, those issues are significant with respect to the unity, consistency and development of EU law.","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"Findings of the Court","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"15       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 4 October 2024, Puma v EUIPO , C‑503/24 P, EU:C:2024:871, paragraph 14).","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"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_35"},{"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_36"},{"text":"18       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, from the outset, be capable of demonstrating that the appeal raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or …","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"19       In the present case, as regards, in the first place, the arguments set out in paragraphs 7 to 12 of the present order, it must be noted that, although the appellant describes the errors of law allegedly committed by the General Court, it does not explain, to the requisite legal standard, or …","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"20       First, the appellant claims that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by incomplete reasoning. In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, although it is true that failure to state reasons or an inadequate statement of reasons constitutes an error of law which may be relied on in the co …","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"21       In that context, it follows from the case-law 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 invoked in its appeal, the appeal raises one or mo …","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"22       However, the appellant does not demonstrate how the alleged incomplete reasoning of the judgment under appeal raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law.","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"23       Second, the appellant claims that its appeal raises a number of issues that are significant with respect to the unity, consistency and development of EU law because of their effects on the protection of highly reputed marks and the increased need for protection of those marks, as well as th …","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"24       In the second place, as regards the arguments summarised in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the present order, in so far as the appellant seeks to call into question the General Court’s assessment of the evidence produced before it, suffice it to recall that such arguments cannot, in principle, be …","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"25       In the present case, the appellant has not demonstrated the existence of any special circumstance which would allow a derogation from that principle.","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"26       In those circumstances, it must be held that the request submitted by the appellant 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_45"},{"text":"27       In the light of the foregoing considerations, the appeal should not be allowed to proceed.","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"Costs","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"28       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_48"},{"text":"29       Since the present order was adopted before the appeal was served on the other party to the proceedings and, therefore, before it could have incurred costs, it is appropriate to decide that the appellant is to bear its own costs.","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"On those grounds, the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) hereby orders:","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"1.       The appeal is not allowed to proceed.","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"2.       Puma SE shall bear its own costs.","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"Luxembourg, 25 June 2025.","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"A. Calot Escobar","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"T. von Danwitz","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"Registrar","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"President of the Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"*       Language of the case: English.","paragraph_id":"para_58"}],"word_count":2899,"cites":["C-146/25","T-11/24","C-552/09","C-252/07","C-382/21","C-503/24","C-613/19","C-79/24","C-339/24","C-248/24"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"f974bd798f4d2e4443c926163416d3a7e78125028678d0c291f9a0464146764b","source_url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62025CO0146","fetched_at":"2026-10-03T03:47:09.852+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-146-25-p","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-146-25-p","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-146-25-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-146-25-p"},"hash":"sha256:040264566409681ade48effc19b6835d03c67a0e01487d74bcb9e096244bfc34","version":"legal-2026-10-13","expires":"2026-10-14T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-13+legal-2026-10-13+2026-10-13T12:55:18","content_hash":"sha256:040264566409681ade48effc19b6835d03c67a0e01487d74bcb9e096244bfc34","revalidate_after":"2026-10-13T14:23:13.379Z","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-146-25-p","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-146-25-p"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-146-25-p"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-146-25-p"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"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-146-25-p","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-45d62884fc22a6c637b909fb1058818a","response_hash":"sha256:040264566409681ade48effc19b6835d03c67a0e01487d74bcb9e096244bfc34"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"stable","as_of":"2026-11-03T11:16:09.565Z","valid_for":604800,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu%3Ac-146-25-p","note":"Oföränderligt objekt med hash. Får cachas länge.","tokens":5201}}