ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber)
Date 12 July 2012(1)
(Community trade mark – Opposition – Withdrawal of the opposition – No need to adjudicate)
In Case T-83/12,
Chico's Brands Investments, Inc., established in Fort Myers (United States), represented by T. Holman, Solicitor,
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 being
Artsana SpA, established in Grandate (Italy),
ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 October 2011 (Case R 2084/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Artsana SpA and Chico's Brands Investments, Inc.,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber),
composed of I. Pelikánová, President, K. Jürimäe, M. Van der Woude (Rapporteur), Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
1 By letter lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 14 May 2012, the applicant informed the Court of an agreement between itself and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, Artsana SpA, and that, pursuant to that agreement, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, Artsana SpA, was withdrawing its opposition to the application for registration of the contested mark. The applicant stated that, in its view, there was no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action. The applicant did not seek an order as to costs.
2 By letter lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 25 May 2012, the defendant informed the Court that, by letter of 7 May 2012, it had itself also been informed of the agreement between the applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. The defendant stated that, in its view, there was no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action. The defendant did not seek an order as to costs.
3 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, the present action has become devoid of purpose. There is therefore no longer any need to adjudicate on the action (order in Case T‑10/01 Lichtwer Pharma v OHIM – Biofarma (Sedonium) [2003] ECR II‑2225, paragraphs 16 to 18).
4 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.
5 In the present case, the General Court considers that in the absence of any claim in that regard, the parties must be ordered to bear their own costs.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. There is no need to adjudicate on the action.
2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
Luxembourg, 12 July 2012.