ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber)
17 July 2014(1)
(Community trade mark – Application for revocation – Withdrawal of the application for revocation – No need to adjudicate)
In Case T-721/13,
The Directv Group, Inc., established in El Segundo (United States), represented by F. Valentin, lawyer,
applicant,
v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM),
defendant,
the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court, being
Bolloré, established in Ergué Gabéric (France), represented by S. Legrand, lawyer,
ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2013 (Case R 1961/2012-2), relating to cancellation proceedings between Bolloré and The Directv Group, Inc.,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber),
composed of A. Dittrich (Rapporteur), President, J. Schwarcz, V. Tomljenović, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
1 By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court on 26 May 2014, the intervener informed the Court of an agreement between itself and the applicant and that, pursuant to that agreement, it withdrew its application for revocation of the contested mark. Consequently, the present action has become devoid of purpose. It also informed the Court that, under that agreement, the applicant would bear the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by other parties to the proceedings.
2 By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court on 16 June 2014, the defendant informed the Court that it raised no objection to the case being declared devoid of purpose. It further requested the Court not to order it to pay the costs.
3 By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court on 25 June 2014, the applicant confirmed the existence of a friendly settlement between itself and the intervener, including in relation to the costs.
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 application for revocation of the contested mark, 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 shall be ordered to pay the costs.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. There is no need to adjudicate on the action.
2.
3. The applicant shall bear the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the defendant and the intervener.
Luxembourg, 17 July 2014.