European Union · Record · CO
CELEX 62025CO0766
Order of the Court of 24 March 2026.#Capella EOOD v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Appeal – EU trade mark – Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Request failing to demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed.#Case C-766/25 P.
Introduced
24 March 2026
Last action
—
Status
decided
Sponsors
—
Subjects
Discovery layer
Source updated
24 March 2026
Records
Official record CELEX 62025CO0766 from European Union at Court of Justice of the European Union. Dated 24 March 2026. Status: decided.
Timeline
No timeline events have been ingested for this record yet.
Votes
No vote records are attached yet.
Versions
No version snapshots stored. Document URLs remain at the source.
Documents
2 official files
Order of the Court of 24 March 2026.#Capella EOOD v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Appeal – EU trade mark – Determination as to whether appeals should be allowed to proceed – Article 170b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Request failing to demonstrate that an issue is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law – Refusal to allow the appeal to proceed.#Case C-766/25 P.
judgment · EN · 24 March 2026
Ordonnance de la Cour (chambre d’admission des pourvois) du 24 mars 2026.#Capella EOOD contre Office de l’Union européenne pour la propriété intellectuelle (EUIPO).#Pourvoi – Marque de l’Union européenne – Admission des pourvois – Article 170 ter du règlement de procédure de la Cour – Demande ne démontrant pas l’importance d’une question pour l’unité, la cohérence ou le développement du droit de l’Union – Non-admission du pourvoi.#Affaire C-766/25 P.
judgment · FR · 24 March 2026
Sponsors
No sponsors or actors listed by the source.
Related records
No cross-record relationships stored yet.
Sources
PoliticalRepo is an index and interpretation layer, not the authoritative legal source.