13.3.2023

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/10

—

(Case C-580/22 P)

(2023/C 94/11)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: bonnanwalt Vermögens- und Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH (represented by: T. Wendt, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Bayerischer Rundfunk, Hessischer Rundfunk, Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, Norddeutscher Rundfunk, Rundfunk Berlin-brandenburg, Saarländischer Rundfunk, Südwestrundfunk, Westdeutscher Rundfunk Köln, Radio Bremen

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—allow the appeal;

—set aside the order under appeal of the General Court of 16. June 2022 in Case T-83/20, and, since the state of the proceedings so permits, in continuation of the action brought at first instance, declare EU trade mark No 10 237 543 to be revoked with effect from 15 November 2017, also in respect of the services ‘Provision of news programmes and reports’;

—order the EU trade-mark proprietors to pay the costs of the proceedings before the European Union Intellectual Property Office, the General Court and the Court of Justice;

—in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for further proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant relies on two grounds in support of its appeal:

First, the appellant submits that in the order under appeal it is wrongly assumed that the independence of the lawyer representing a party, which is to be examined in the context of the third paragraph of Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, is manifestly impaired where the represented party is a legal person whose managing director is the owner of the law firm with which the lawyer representing that party is employed.

It is wrongly assumed in the order under appeal that the independence of the lawyer representing a party, which is to be examined in the context of the third paragraph of Article 19(3) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, is also manifestly impaired where the client is indeed a legal person whose managing director is the proprietor of the law firm at which the lawyer is employed, but the subject matter of the dispute relates to an actio popularis the pursuit of which is in the public interest.

The order under appeal fails to take into consideration that the pursuit of an actio popularis constitutes a factor which, in the opinion of the Court of Justice — alone or in conjunction with other factors — is suitable for classifying situations and permits a view to be taken as to whether the independence of the representative is manifestly impaired.

Second, the appellant submits that the order under appeal is based on a failure to comply with the obligation, arising from Article 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to give a party who, in the opinion of the General Court or the Court of Justice, is not properly represented by a lawyer for the purpose of Article 51(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court in conjunction with Article 19(3) and (4) of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, notice of that fact before the adoption of a decision dismissing the action or appeal and to afford that party the opportunity to be properly represented.

Appeal allowed to proceed

By order of the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) of 30 January 2023 the appeal was granted in its entirety.

—