In Case T-273/21

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
OF THE FIFTH CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT

19 January 2022(*)

(Intervention — Dismissal — Application lodged after the expiry of the time-limit provided for in the Rules of procedure)

In Case T-273/21,

The Topps Company, Inc., established in Wilmington, Delaware (United States), represented by D. Wieddekind and D. Wiemann, lawyers,

applicant,

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by R.Raponi and D.Gája, acting as Agents,

defendant,

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

Trebor Robert Bilkiewicz, established in Gdansk (Poland), represented by P.Ratnicki-Kiczka, lawyer,

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10March 2021 (CaseR1326/2020-2), relating to cancellation proceedings between Trebor Robert Bilkiewicz and The Topps Company,

1By document lodged at the Court Registry on 3September 2021, the European Association of Trade Mark Owners (MARQUES) applied for leave to intervene in the present proceedings in support of the form of order sought by the applicant.

2In accordance with Article143(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, an application to intervene must be submitted within six weeks of the publication of the notice referred to in Article79 thereof.

3In the present case, the notice in the Official Journal of the European Union referred to in Article79 of the Rules of Procedure having been published on 12July 2021, the application to intervene was lodged after the expiry of the time-limit of six weeks referred to in Article143(1) of the Rules of Procedure, as extended on the account of distance under Article60 thereof. As a matter of fact, in accordance with Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure, this time-limit expired on 2 September 2021 at midnight.

4The application to intervene must therefore be dismissed without being served on the parties.

Costs

5Under Article144(6) of the Rules of Procedure, if the application to intervene is refused, the order must include a decision as to the costs relating to the application to intervene, including the costs of the applicant for leave to intervene, pursuant to Articles134, 135 and 138.

6As the present order was adopted prior to service of the application to intervene on the parties and before the latter could have incurred costs, it is sufficient to decide that the applicant for leave to intervene must bear its own costs.

On those grounds,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE FIFTH CHAMBER
OF THE GENERAL COURT

hereby orders:

1.The application to intervene in CaseT‑273/21 lodged by the European Association of Trade Marks Owners (MARQUES) is dismissed.

2.MARQUES shall bear its own costs.

Luxembourg, 19 January 2022.

* Language of the case: English.