Documents
Europa English Court of Justice of the European Union CJEU
25.03.2021
Order
Austria Tabak v EUIPO - Mignot & De Block (AIR)
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber)25 March 2021 (*)(Procedure – Taxation of costs – EU trade mark)In Case T‑800/19 DEP,Austria Tabak Gmb H, established in Vienna (Austria), represented by J. L. Gracia Albero and R. Ahijón Lana, lawyers,applicant,v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO),defendant,the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, being Mignot & De Block BV, established in Eindhoven (Netherlands), re...
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber)25 March 2021 (*)(Procedure – Taxation of costs – EU trade mark)In Case T‑800/19 DEP,Austria Tabak Gmb H, established in Vienna (Austria), represented by J. L. Gracia Albero and R. Ahijón Lana, lawyers,applicant,v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO),defendant,the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, being Mignot & De Block BV, established in Eindhoven (Netherlands), represented by S. Körber, lawyer,APPLICATION for taxation of costs to be reimbursed by the applicant to the intervener following the judgment of 8 July 2020, Austria Tabak v EUIPO – Mignot & De Block (AIR) (T‑800/19, not published, EU:T:2020:324),THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber),composed of A. Marcoulli, President, J. Schwarcz (Rapporteur) and R. Norkus, Judges,Registrar: E. Coulon,makes the following Order Facts, procedure and form of order sought by the intervener 1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 20 November 2019, the applicant, Austria Tabak Gmb H, brought an action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 September 2019 (Case R 1665/2018‑4), relating to revocation proceedings between Mignot & De Block and Austria Tabak.2 The intervener, Mignot & De Block BV, intervened in the proceedings in support of the form of order sought by EUIPO. It contended that the Court should dismiss the action and order the applicant to pay...
Errors and omissions excepted. As of: 25.03.2021