ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)
1 August 2014(1)
(Community trade mark – Opposition – Withdrawal of the opposition – No need to adjudicate)
In Case T-81/14,
Energy Brands Inc., established in Atlanta (United States), represented by D. Stone and R. Allos, Sollicitors,
applicant,
v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent,
defendant,
the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court, being
Smart Wines GmbH, established in Cologne (Germany), represented by I. Schwarz, lawyer,
ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2013 (Case R 903/2013-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Energy Brands, Inc. and Smart Wines GmbH,
THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber),
composed of M. van der Woude, President, I. Wiszniewska-Białecka, I. Ulloa Rubio (Rapporteur), Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
1 By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court on 13 May 2014, the defendant informed the General Court of a procedural error found in the decision contested in the present proceedings by the applicant. It further informed the Court of its intention to revoke this decision.
2 By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court on 30 May 2014, the defendant informed the Court of an agreement between the applicant and the intervener and that, pursuant to that agreement, the intervener withdrew its opposition against the contested mark. It considered, relying on Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, that the case had become devoid of purpose and therefore there was no need to adjudicate. It further requested the Court not to order it to pay the costs of proceedings.
3 The applicant and the intervener did not submit any observations.
4 Pursuant to Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, it suffices in the present case to find that, in the light of the withdrawal of the opposition for registration, the present action has become devoid of purpose. There is therefore no longer any need to adjudicate on the action (order of 3 July 2003, Lichtwer Pharma v OHIM - Biofarma (Sedonium), T‑10/01, ECR, EU:T:2003:182, paragraphs 16 to 18).
5 Article 87(6) of the Rules of Procedure provides that, where a case does not proceed to judgment, the costs are in the discretion of the Court.
6 In the present case, the Court considers that the applicant, the defendant and the intervener must be ordered to bear their own costs.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. There is no need to adjudicate on the action.
2.
3. The applicant, the defendant and the intervener shall each bear their own costs.
Luxembourg, 1 August 2014.
E. Coulon | | M. van der Woude |