C-365/25

ORDER OF THE COURT (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) 19 March 2026 (*) ( Article 155 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Failure to adjudicate – None ) In Case C‑365/25 P‑OST, APPLICATION under Article 155 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, brought on 12 December 2025, Giuliani SpA, established in Milan (Italy), represented by S. de Bosio, avvocato, and D. Philippe, avocat, applicant, the other parties to the proceedings being: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), defendant at first instance, Health and Happiness (H&H) Hong Kong Ltd, established in Hong Kong (China), intervener at first instance, THE COURT (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed), composed of T. von Danwitz, Vice-President of the Court, M. Gavalec and Z. Csehi (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General: M. Szpunar, Registrar: A. Calot Escobar, after hearing the Advocate General, makes the following Order 1        By its application, Giuliani SpA requests that a failure by the Court of Justice to adjudicate in the order of 2 December 2025, Giuliani v EUIPO (C‑365/25 P, EU:C:2025:1022), be remedied. 2        By that order, the Court of Justice did not allow the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 2 April 2025, Giuliani v EUIPO – H&H (Swisse) (T‑442/23, EU:T:2025:354), to proceed, by which judgment the General Court dismissed its action for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 31 May 2023 (Case R 2185/2019-1 RENV), relating to invalidity proceedings between Giuliani and Health and Happiness (H&H) Hong Kong Ltd. 3        In support of its application, the applicant claims, in essence, that, in the abovementioned order, the Court of Justice failed to adjudicate on a specific head of claim set out in its request that the appeal be allowed to proceed, namely the head of claim set out in paragraph 8 of that order. The applicant maintains that the considerations in paragraphs 14 to 17 of that order do not adequately address the arguments which it raised in that request that the appeal be allowed to proceed. Consequently, it submits that the Court did not consider that head of claim and that, in so doing, it failed to adjudicate on it. 4        Under Article 159a of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where a request or an application referred to in Chapter 9 of those rules – which includes Article 155 thereof – is, in whole or in part, manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded, the Court may, having heard the Judge-Rapporteur and the Advocate General, at any time decide to dismiss it, in whole or in part, by reasoned order. 5        In that regard, it must be borne in mind that it follows from Article 155(1) of the Rules of Procedure that a failure to adjudicate stems from the Court’s breach of its obligation to adjudicate on all the heads of claim submitted to it, including those relating to costs. On the other hand, an application under that provision cannot be brought before the Court in order to allege that the Court failed to adjudicate on one or more arguments raised before it (order of 23 March 2023, Correia de Matos v Commission, C‑79/22 P‑OST, EU:C:2023:258, paragraph 10 and the case-law cited). 6        In the present case, it must be stated that, in its application, the applicant does not establish that the Court, in the order of 2 December 2025, Giuliani v EUIPO (C‑365/25 P, EU:C:2025:1022), failed to adjudicate on a particular head of claim in the request that the appeal be allowed to proceed, but merely claims that certain arguments raised in support of that request were not adequately examined. 7        In addition and in any event, given that the Court, by that order, as is apparent from paragraph 1 of the operative part thereof, rejected the request that the appeal be allowed to proceed in its entirety, the heads of claim submitted by the applicant in that order were all necessarily dismissed (see, by analogy, order of 23 March 2023, Correia de Matos v Commission, C‑79/22 P‑OST, EU:C:2023:258, paragraph 12 and the case-law cited). 8        Accordingly, the applicant’s application seeking that the Court’s alleged failure to adjudicate in the order of 2 December 2025, Giuliani v EUIPO (C‑365/25 P, EU:C:2025:1022), be remedied must be dismissed as manifestly unfounded.  Costs 9        Under Article 138(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. In the present case, since the present order was adopted before the appeal was served on the other parties to the proceedings and, therefore, before they could have incurred costs, it is appropriate to decide that the applicant is to bear its own costs. On those grounds, the Court (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) hereby orders: 1.      The application under Article 155(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, brought on 12 December 2025 by Giuliani SpA, is dismissed. 2.      Giuliani SpA shall bear its own costs. Luxembourg, 19 March 2026. A. Calot Escobar   T. von Danwitz Registrar President of the Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed *      Language of the case: English.