10 December 2020 (*)

(EU trade mark – Procedure – Taxation of costs – Manifest inadmissibility)

In Case T‑63/19 DEP,

Rot Front OAO,

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 in Case T‑63/19, being

Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’,

APPLICATION for taxation of costs following the judgment of 13 May 2020, Rot Front v EUIPO – Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (РОШЕН) (T‑63/19, not published, EU:T:2020:195),

THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber),

composed of A. Marcoulli (Rapporteur), President, S. Frimodt Nielsen and J. Schwarcz, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Facts, procedure and forms of order sought

1By application lodged at the Court Registry on 31 January 2019, the applicant, Rot Front OAO, brought an action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 November 2018 (Case R 1872/2018-2), relating to opposition proceedings between the applicant and the intervener in the main proceedings, Dochirnie pidpryiemstvo Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’.

2By judgment of 13 May 2020, Rot Front v EUIPO – Kondyterska korporatsiia ‘Roshen’ (РОШЕН) (T‑63/19, not published, EU:T:2020:195), the Court granted the application for annulment and ordered EUIPO to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the applicant. The Court also ordered the intervener in the main proceedings to bear its own costs.

3By application lodged at the Court Registry on 30 August 2020, the applicant brought an application for taxation of costs, pursuant to Article 170(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, requesting the Court to determine the costs to be recovered from the intervener in the main proceedings and to order EUIPO to pay costs to the applicant in the amount of EUR 10 286.36.

4By document lodged at the Court Registry on 7 October 2020, EUIPO, arguing that there was no dispute concerning the costs to be recovered, requested the Court to dismiss the application for taxation of costs as inadmissible and order the applicant to pay the costs.

Law

5Under Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure, where it is clear that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine an action or where an action is manifestly inadmissible or manifestly lacking any foundation in law, the Court may, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur, at any time decide to give a decision by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings. In the present case, the Court, considering that it has sufficient information from the documents before it, has decided to give a decision without taking further steps in the proceedings.

6Under Article 170(1) of the Rules of Procedure, if there is a dispute concerning the costs to be recovered, the party concerned may apply to the Court to determine the dispute.

7It follows from that latter provision that an application for the Court to decide on the costs to be recovered is admissible only ‘if there is a dispute’ (see, by analogy, order of 9 November 2017, Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland v Lotte, C‑586/15 P-DEP, not published, EU:C:2017:855, paragraph 8).

8It is, therefore, necessary to examine, in the present case, whether there was a dispute concerning the costs to be recovered at the time the application for taxation of costs was lodged (see, to that effect, order of 21 July 2020, Bodegas Altún v EUIPO – Codorníu (ANA DE ALTUN), T‑334/18 DEP, EU:T:2020:352, paragraph 12).

9In that regard, it must be noted, first, that the application for taxation of costs lodged by the applicant does not refer to any dispute, or to any disagreement, between the parties concerning the costs to be recovered, or even to any claim that the applicant might have addressed to EUIPO with regard to those costs. Indeed, the application for taxation of costs simply lists, in a table, the expenses for legal representation allegedly incurred by the applicant and payable by EUIPO. Secondly, in its observations on the application for taxation of costs, EUIPO, arguing that that application is inadmissible, confirmed that it had not received any claim from the applicant regarding those costs.

10Consequently, it is not apparent from the file that there was a dispute between the applicant and EUIPO concerning the costs to be recovered at the time the application for taxation of costs was lodged.

11The application for taxation of costs directed against EUIPO is, therefore, manifestly inadmissible.

12Moreover, to the extent that the applicant’s application should also be understood as seeking to determine a portion of the costs which it may be able to recover from the intervener in the main proceedings, such an application would also be manifestly inadmissible. Apart from the fact that such an application lacks any detail, or even supporting arguments, it must be recalled that, in the judgment of 13 May 2020, РОШЕН (T‑63/19, not published, EU:T:2020:195), the Court has already allocated the costs, by a decision which has become final. In particular, the Court did not order the intervener in the main proceedings to pay the applicant’s costs, ordering only that it should bear its own costs.

13Accordingly, the application for taxation of costs must be dismissed in its entirety as being manifestly inadmissible.

14Under 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.

15Since the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to bear its own costs in the present proceedings and to pay those incurred by EUIPO, in accordance with the form of order sought by the latter.

On those grounds,

hereby orders:

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

2.Rot Front OAO shall bear, in the present proceedings, its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

Luxembourg, 10 December 2020.

Registrar

President

—

Language of the case: English.