26 May 2025 (*)

( Procedure – Taxation of costs – Manifest inadmissibility )

In Case T‑663/19 DEP,

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

Kreativni Događaji d.o.o., established in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by R. Kunze, lawyer,

THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber),

composed of A. Marcoulli, President, J. Schwarcz (Rapporteur) and V. Tomljenović, Judges,

Registrar: V. Di Bucci,

having regard to the judgment of 21 April 2021, Hasbro v EUIPO – Kreativni Dogadaji (MONOPOLY) (T‑663/19, EU:T:2021:211),

makes the following

1By its application, based on Article 170 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the intervener, Kreativni Događaji d.o.o., asks the Court to fix at EUR 26 698 the amount of recoverable costs to be paid by the applicant, Hasbro, Inc., in respect of the costs which it incurred in the proceedings in Case T‑663/19.

Facts, procedure and forms of order sought

2By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 30 September 2019, registered under Case T‑663/19, the applicant brought an action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 July 2019 (Case R 1849/2017-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between the applicant and the intervener.

3The intervener supported EUIPO’s claims that the action should be dismissed and that the applicant should be ordered to pay the costs.

4By judgment of 21 April 2021, Hasbro v EUIPO – Kreativni Dogadaji (MONOPOLY) (T‑663/19, EU:T:2021:211), the Court dismissed the action and ordered the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the intervener.

5By order of 1 December 2021, Hasbro v EUIPO (C‑373/21 P, not published, EU:C:2021:983), the Court of Justice did not allow the appeal brought by the applicant against the judgment of the General Court referred to in paragraph 4 above to proceed, and ordered it to bear its own costs.

6By the present application for the taxation of costs, made pursuant to Article 170 of the Rules of Procedure, the intervener asks the Court to fix the amount of recoverable costs to be reimbursed by the applicant at EUR 26 698 in respect of the main proceedings.

7The applicant did not submit any observations on the application for taxation of costs within the prescribed period.

Law

8Under Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure, where the action is manifestly inadmissible, the General Court may decide to give a decision by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings.

9In the present case, 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 give a decision without taking further steps in the proceedings.

10Under Article 170(1) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure, where there is a dispute concerning the costs to be recovered, the General Court is, at the request of the party concerned, to give its decision by way of an order from which no appeal is to lie, after giving the party concerned by the application an opportunity to submit its observations.

11It follows from that provision that it is necessary to examine whether there was a dispute regarding the costs to be recovered prior to the lodging of the application for taxation of costs (see order of 21 July 2020, Bodegas Altún v EUIPO – Codorníu (ANA DE ALTUN), T‑334/18 DEP, EU:T:2020:352, paragraph 12 and the case-law cited).

12Although none of the provisions of the Rules of Procedure require a party to submit documentary evidence in support of its claims at the initial contact stage preceding the submission of an application for taxation of costs, the fact remains that the party obliged to pay must have been able to express its views on the costs claimed by the applicant before the application for taxation of costs was lodged (see order of 21 July 2020, ANA DE ALTUN, T‑334/18 DEP, EU:T:2020:352, paragraph 20 and the case-law cited).

13In the present case, it is not apparent from the material in the file that, as at the date on which the intervener applied to the Court for a ruling on recoverable costs, there was any dispute between the parties as to the amount of the recoverable costs or their payment.

14Indeed, in support of its application for taxation of costs, the intervener failed to refer to the existence of such a dispute, the application merely indicating the amount of costs claimed and reproducing, in an annex, fee invoices which had been sent to the intervener by its lawyer.

15In addition, on 11 April 2025, in response to a measure of organisation of procedure, the intervener stated that it had contacted the applicant with a view to obtaining payment of the recoverable costs on 30 December 2024, that is to say, on the same day as it submitted its application for taxation of costs.

16It must therefore be held that the applicant was not in a position to express an opinion on the costs claimed by the intervener before the present application for taxation of costs was lodged, with the result that there was no dispute as to the recoverable costs prior to the lodging of the present application.

17It follows that the present application for taxation of costs must be dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

On those grounds,

hereby orders:

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

Luxembourg, 26 May 2025.

Registrar

President

—

Language of the case: English.