Miele & Cie. v Melitta Europa (CFI, 4 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 4 May 2026 (UPC_CFI_1148/2026), the Munich Local Division admits the withdrawal, consented to by Melitta, of Miele’s application for provisional measures concerning vacuum cleaner bags (EP 4 676 295 B1), made after the panel indicated that the validity of the asserted claims appeared undermined. Miele bears Melitta’s costs but obtains a refund of 50% of the court fees (EUR 7,300). The headnote holds that a withdrawal following a suggestion from the Court does not, as a rule, warrant refusing or reducing that refund.

Question

Does an applicant who withdraws its application for provisional measures after an unfavourable provisional view from the Court keep its right to a partial refund of court fees?

Decision

The withdrawal is admitted with the respondent’s consent and Miele bears Melitta’s costs (Rule 118.5 RoP), up to the ceiling for a value of EUR 350,000 (paragraph 7). In provisional measures proceedings, the 50% refund is due if the application is withdrawn before the written procedure closes, the Court being able to refuse or reduce it in exceptional cases (paragraphs 8 and 9). Where the withdrawal follows a suggestion from the Court, that power is as a rule not used: the party accepts the provisional view and spares a hearing or a reasoned decision (paragraphs 10 and 11). Melitta’s point that no warning letter was sent makes no difference.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: faced with an unfavourable provisional view in provisional measures proceedings, a prompt withdrawal limits the costs exposure and preserves the refund of half the court fees.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118.5, 250, 265 and 370.9

Case law cited

Mann+Hummel v Sotras, Munich Local Division, 1 April 2025

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.