26 July 2023 (*)

(Procedure – Taxation of costs – Inadmissibility)

In Case T‑601/21 DEP,

Pharmadom,

established in Boulogne-Billancourt (France), represented by M.‑P. Dauquaire, lawyer,

applicant,

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

Wellstat Therapeutics Corp.,

established in Rockville, Maryland (United States), represented by M. Graf, lawyer,

THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber),

composed of F. Schalin, President, P. Škvařilová-Pelzl (Rapporteur) and I. Nõmm, Judges,

Registrar: V. Di Bucci,

having regard to the judgment of 9 November 2022, Pharmadom v EUIPO – Wellstat Therapeutics (WELLMONDE) (T‑601/21, not published, EU:T:2022:687),

makes the following

Background to the dispute, procedure and forms of order sought

1By application lodged at the Court Registry on 20 September 2021 and registered under Case T‑601/21, the applicant, Pharmadom, brought an action for annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 June 2021 (Case R 1776/2020-5), relating to opposition proceedings between the intervener and the applicant.

2The intervener, Wellstat Therapeutics Corp., supported the form of order sought by EUIPO, namely that the action should be dismissed, and contended that the applicant should be ordered to pay the costs.

3By judgment of 9 November 2022, Pharmadom v EUIPO – Wellstat Therapeutics (WELLMONDE) (T‑601/21, not published, EU:T:2022:687), the Court dismissed the action and ordered the applicant to pay the costs incurred by EUIPO and the intervener.

4By document lodged at the Court Registry on 17 February 2023, the intervener submitted, pursuant to Article 170 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the present application for taxation of costs, by which it requested that the Court set the recoverable amount to be reimbursed by the applicant at EUR 3 275.

Law

5Under Article 129 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur, the Court may at any time of its own motion, after hearing the main parties, decide to rule by reasoned order on whether there exists any absolute bar to proceeding with a case.

6In this instance, the Court considers that it has sufficient information available to it from the material in the file and has decided, pursuant to that article, to rule on the present proceedings by reasoned order.

7Under Article 170 of the Rules of Procedure, if there is a dispute concerning the costs to be recovered, the Court, on application by the party concerned and after hearing the opposite party, is to make an order, from which no appeal lies.

8It follows from that provision that it is necessary in the present case to examine the existence of a dispute regarding the costs to be recovered (see, to that effect, orders of 21 July 2020, Bodegas Altún v EUIPO – Codorníu (ANA DE ALTUN), T‑334/18 DEP, EU:T:2020:352, paragraph 12, and of 8 October 2020, Soundio v EUIPO – Telefónica Germany (Vibble), T‑665/18 DEP, not published, EU:T:2020:497, paragraph 10).

9In that regard, in its application for taxation of costs lodged at the Court Registry on 17 February 2023, the intervener made no mention of any exchange between it and the applicant concerning recoverable costs prior to the submission of that application. Moreover, it has not produced any material capable of demonstrating the existence of such an exchange.

10In its observations in defence, the applicant stated that the intervener had asked it to pay the recoverable costs only in a letter dated 2 March 2023, sent after the application for taxation of costs had been submitted.

11On 27 April 2023, in connection with a measure of organisation of procedure, the Court invited the parties to submit their observations on whether the application for taxation of costs might have been submitted prematurely.

12In its reply, the intervener confined itself to stating that it had sent several letters to the applicant concerning the payment of recoverable costs, without providing any details in that regard or producing any material, whereas the applicant confirmed that it had not received any letters prior to the date on which the application for taxation of costs was submitted.

13Accordingly, it is sufficient to find that it is not apparent from the documents in the file that, at the date on which the intervener requested that the Court give a ruling, there was a dispute between the parties as to the amount of the recoverable costs or as to the liquidation thereof (see order of 8 October 2020, Vibble, T‑665/18 DEP, not published, EU:T:2020:497, paragraph 11 and the case-law cited).

14It follows that the application must be dismissed as inadmissible.

15Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.

16Since the applicant has not applied for costs relating to the present proceedings, each party must be ordered to bear its own costs (see, to that effect, orders of 9 November 2017, Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland v Lotte, C‑586/15 P‑DEP, not published, EU:C:2017:855, paragraph 43, and of 21 July 2020, ANA DE ALTUN, T‑334/18 DEP, EU:T:2020:352, paragraph 27).

On those grounds,

hereby orders:

1.The application for taxation of costs is dismissed as inadmissible.

2.Pharmadom and Wellstat Therapeutics Corp. shall each bear their own costs relating to the present proceedings.

Luxembourg, 26 July 2023.

Registrar

President

—

Language of the case: English.