Дело T-***/**: *****************, Определение от **.**.2024 г.

Текст

... ssibility )

In Case T‑230/24,

TelForceOne S.A., established in Wrocław (Poland), represented by M. Mielniczuk-Skibicka and E. Gryc-Zerych, lawyers,

applicant,

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent,

defendant,

the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, being

4Kraft sp. z o.o., established in Poznań (Poland), represented by J. Skołuda, lawyer,

THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber),

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

Registrar: V. Di Bucci,

having regard to the written part of the procedure, in particular:

– the plea of inadmissibility raised by the intervener by a separate document lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 12 July 2024,

– the applicant’s observations regarding the plea of inadmissibility, lodged at the Court Registry on 26 August 2024,

makes the following

Order

1. By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, TelForceOne S.A., seeks the annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2024 (Case R 677/2023-3).

Law

2. As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, under Article 173(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, other than the applicant, who has become an intervener before the Court in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of that article is to have the same procedural rights as the main parties. That intervener may support the ...