Orders nº T-681/17 DEP to T-683/17 DEP of Tribunal General de la Unión Europea, February 05, 2021

• Resolution Date: February 05, 2021
• Issuing Organization: Tribunal General de la Unión Europea
• Decision Number: T-681/17 DEP to T-683/17 DEP

(Procedure - Taxation of costs)

In Joined Cases T-681/17 DEP to T-683/17 DEP,

Khadi and Village Industries Commission, established in Mumbai Maharashtra (India), represented by J. Guise, N. Rose and V. Ellis, Solicitors,

applicant,

v

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

BNP Best Natural Products GmbH, established in Munich (Germany), represented by M. Kloth and R. Briske, lawyers,

APPLICATION for taxation of costs to be reimbursed by the applicant to the intervener following the judgments of 29 November 2018, Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO - BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi) (T-681/17, not published, EU:T:2018:858), Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO - BNP Best Natural Products (khadí Naturprodukte aus Indíen) (T-682/17, not published, EU:T:2018:856), and Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO - BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi Ayurveda) (T-683/17, not published, EU:T:2018:860),

THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber),

composed of H. Kanninen, President, N. Półtorak (Rapporteur) and O. Porchia, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

Facts, procedure and forms of order sought

1 By three applications lodged at the Court Registry on 2 October 2017, registered respectively under the numbers T-681/17, T-682/17 and T-683/17, the applicant, Khadi Naturprodukte GbR, brought three actions for annulment of the decisions of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 June 2017 (Case R 2083/2016-5) and of 12 July 2017 (Cases R 2085/2016-5 and R 2086/2016-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Khadi and Village Industries Commission and BNP Best Natural Products.

2 The intervener intervened in support of the form of order sought by EUIPO in each of the three cases in the main proceedings. It contended that the Court should dismiss the action and order the applicant to pay the costs.

3 By judgments of 29 November 2018, (Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO - BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi) (T-681/17, not published, EU:T:2018:858), Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO - BNP Best Natural Products (khadí Naturprodukte aus Indíen) (T-682/17, not published, EU:T:2018:856), and Khadi and Village Industries Commission v EUIPO - BNP Best Natural Products (Khadi Ayurveda) (T-683/17, not published, EU:T:2018:860)), the Court dismissed the applicant’s actions and ordered it to pay the costs.

4 By letter of 6 February 2020, BNP Best Natural Products requested that the applicant pay to it the amount of its recoverable costs, which it calculated, with regard to the three cases, as the sum of EUR 65 872.67 in total.

5 By a second letter of 2 April 2020, BNP Best Natural Products repeated its request for payment.

6 The applicant did not respond to the intervener’s requests.

7 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 11 August 2020, the intervener in Cases T-681/17, T-682/17 and T-683/17 lodged, pursuant to Article 170(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, an application for taxation of costs by which it requested that the Court fix the total amount of recoverable costs at EUR 65 872.67.

8 The applicant did not submit any observations.

Law

Arguments of the parties

9 The intervener submits that, in spite of its repeated requests, the applicant has not paid any sum in respect of the reimbursement of its costs and that, consequently, it has an interest in a ruling from the Court with regard to the taxation of costs. It takes the view that the amount of EUR 65 872.67 claimed is justified by specific fee notes issued by the lawyers. It argues that the invoices provided by its representatives contain clear and unmistakable information on the costs and fees rate for the services rendered and the exact number of hours worked.

10 Furthermore, the intervener takes the view that the amount claimed is not excessive. In that regard, it submits, first, that the number of hours spent on handling the three cases in the main proceedings is reasonable since those hours were objectively necessary for the proper processing of the case and for the client to exercise its rights and, secondly, that the amount claimed can also be explained by the careful preparation of the case file and the considerable volume of individual written pleadings.

11 Lastly, the intervener claims that the three cases in the main proceedings are particularly complex precisely because of the connection between them. It argues that, in each of those three cases, the applicant put forward a broad range of grounds for annulment against each of which the intervener had to defend its position, which required a considerable amount of legal work, research and drafting.

12 The intervener adds that the fact that the applicant neither replied to nor accepted the claims for costs must, in accordance with the case-law of the Court, be deemed to constitute a dispute concerning the costs to be recovered, within the meaning of Article 170(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

Findings of the Court

13 Article 170(3) of the Rules...