ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)
31 May 2024 (*)
(EU trade mark – Revocation of the contested decision – Action which has become devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate)
In Case T‑57/23,
Stellar Travels Touristikes Epicheiriseis AE, formerly Goldair Tourism Touristikes Epicheiriseis AE, established in Paiania (Greece), represented by E. Ventouri, lawyer,
applicant,
v
European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by T. Frydendahl, acting as Agent,
defendant,
the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, being
Gkolemis Etaireia Aeroporikon Exypiretiseon AE, established in Marousi (Greece), represented by E.‑P. Liaskos, lawyer,
THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber),
composed of A. Kornezov (Rapporteur), President, D. Petrlík and K. Kecsmár, Judges,
Registrar: V. Di Bucci,
having regard to the written part of the procedure,
makes the following
Order
1 By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Stellar Travels Touristikes Epicheiriseis AE, seeks the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 19 December 2022 (Case R 1385/2022‑4) (‘the contested decision’).
2 By decision of 6 September 2023 (‘the revocation decision’), the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO revoked the contested decision pursuant to Article 103 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).
3 By letter of 14 September 2023, EUIPO submitted a request that the proceedings be stayed pursuant to Article 69(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, pending the revocation decision becoming final.
4 On 15 September 2023, the applicant and the intervener, Gkolemis Etaireia Aeroporikon Exypiretiseon AE, were invited to submit their observations on EUIPO’s request for a stay of proceedings. On 25 September 2023, the applicant indicated its agreement with that request, whereas the intervener did not submit observations within the prescribed period.
5 On 3 October 2023, pursuant to Article 69(d) of the Rules of Procedure, the President of the Eighth Chamber of the General Court decided to stay the present proceedings until the revocation decision became final.
6 By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 28 March 2024, EUIPO informed the Court that the revocation decision had become final and lodged an application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate pursuant to Article 130(2) of the Rules of Procedure, on the ground that the action had become devoid of purpose.
7 On 2 April 2024, the applicant and the intervener were invited to submit their observations on EUIPO’s application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate, which they did not do within the prescribed period.
8 It follows from Article 130(2) of the Rules of Procedure that a party may apply to the Court for a declaration that the action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on it. In accordance with Article 130(7) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court is to decide on the application referred to in Article 130(2) as soon as possible or, where special circumstances so justify, to reserve its decision until it rules on the substance of the case.
9 In the present case, it is sufficient to find that, in view of the revocation decision, which has become final, the action has become devoid of purpose. It follows that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on it (see, to that effect, order of 30 May 2022, mBank v EUIPO – European Merchant Bank (EMBANK European Merchant Bank), T‑331/21, not published, EU:T:2022:324, paragraph 8 and the case-law cited).
10 Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure provides that, where a case does not proceed to judgment, the costs are to be in the discretion of the Court.
11 It is clear from the revocation decision that the contested decision was revoked on the ground that it was vitiated by an obvious error attributable to EUIPO.
12 In those circumstances, the Court considers it appropriate to order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant and the intervener (see, to that effect, order of 11 February 2021, Sam McKnight v EUIPO – Carolina Herrera (COOL GIRL), T‑176/20, not published, EU:T:2021:94, paragraph 9).
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.
2. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall pay the costs.
Luxembourg, 31 May 2024.