7) The appellant claims that the first argument raises an issue that is significant with respect to the consistency and development of EU law. In that regard, the appellant argues that, following the annulment of the decision of 1 September 2009 of the Second Board of Appeal by the Court in the judgment of 10 November 2016, Simba Toys v EUIPO (C‑30/15 P, EU:C:2016:849), the Board of Appeal adopted a new decision (‘the decision at issue’) based on a new interpretation of the assessment criteria laid down in Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) without first inviting the parties to express an opinion on the new assessment criteria established in the judgment in Simba Toys v EUIPO (C‑30/15 P, EU:C:2016:849). The appellant claims to have been thus deprived of the right to submit new legal arguments and facts and to draw the Board’s attention to well-known facts. It follows that the decision at issue, confirmed by the judgment under appeal, was based on facts and grounds on which the appellant has not had the opportunity to express an opinion, which constitutes an infringement of the right to a fair hearing and the right to equality of arms, enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and reflected in Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94.

...

11) The appellant claims that the fourth argument raises issues that are significant with respect to the unity, consistency and development of EU law. In that argument the appellant complains that the General Court infringed Article 17 of the Charter and Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94 by failing to strike a correct and proportionate balance between the rights and interests of the trade mark proprietor, on the one hand, and those of competitors, on the other. When the General Court assessed the functionality of the shapes in paragraphs 43 and 97 of the judgment under appeal, it took into account only the ‘public interest’, which was inconsistent with the judgments of 14 September 2010, Lego Juris v OHIM (C‑48/09 P, EU:C:2010:516) and of 18 June 2002, Philips (Case C‑299/99, EU:C:2002:377). In doing so, the General Court infringed the fundamental right to property of trade mark proprietors and infringed a fundamental principle of trade mark law, namely the need to strike a balance between the right to property and fair competition.

...

16) In that regard, concerning, in the first place, the argument set out in paragraphs 7 and 8 above, in which the appellant alleges that its right to be heard, enshrined in Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 and in Article 47 of the Charter, has been infringed to the extent that the Board of Appeal did not invite the parties to submit observations following the resumption of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal after the annulment of its first decision by an EU Court and before the adoption of the decision at issue, it must be pointed out that, in accordance with the burden of proof which lies with the appellant requesting that the appeal be allowed to proceed, such an argument does not, in itself, establish that the appeal raises an issue that is significant with respect to the consistency or development of EU law, the appellant having to comply, to that end, with all the requirements set out in paragraph 14 above.

...

21) In the fourth place, as regards the argument in paragraph 11 above, according to which the General Court’s interpretation of the ‘public interest’ criterion was incorrect and disproportionate, it must be noted that, in accordance with the burden of proof which lies with the appellant requesting that the appeal be allowed to proceed, such an argument is not, in itself, sufficient to establish that the appeal raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of EU law, the appellant having to comply, to that end, with all the requirements set out in paragraph 13 and 14 above (see, to that effect, order of 12 March 2020, Roxtec v EUIPO, C‑893/19 P, not published, EU:C:2020:209, paragraph 21). In the present case, the appellant merely asserts, in a general manner, that the General Court incorrectly interpreted that criterion, without stating precisely and specifically how that interpretation, first, infringed Article 17 of the Charter and Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94 and, second, raises an issue that is significant with respect to the unity, consistency or development of the EU law.