ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber)
12 September 2013(*)
(Community trade mark – Appointment of a new representative – Applicant’s failure to act – No need to adjudicate)
In Case T‑580/12,
J. Yaqub, residing in Nottingham (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland),
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 being
the Republic of Turkey,
ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2012 (Case R 2613/2011-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, the Republic of Turkey and, on the other, J. Yaqub and G. Yaqub,
THE COURT,
composed of: J. Azizi, President, S. Frimodt Nielsen (Rapporteur) and E. Buttigieg, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon
having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 27 December 2012,
makes the following
Order
1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 27 December 2012, Ms Jannine Jenkins, in her capacity as a solicitor acting for the applicant, J. Yaqub, brought an action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2012 (Case R 2613/2011-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, the Republic of Turkey and, on the other, J. Yaqub and G. Yaqub.
2 By letter from the Registrar to Ms Jenkins of 30 January 2013, Ms Jenkins was asked to put the application in order within the period which had been granted to her for that purpose. Ms Jenkins has not responded to that letter.
3 By letter from the Registrar to Ms Jenkins of 13 February 2013, Ms Jenkins was asked again to put the application in order. In that letter the Registrar reminded her that, in the absence of designation by the applicant of a new representative for the purposes of the proceedings pending before the Court, the Registrar was bound to continue to address all correspondence relating to that action to Ms Jenkins, since she was still formally the applicant’s representative. However, Ms Jenkins did not respond to that letter either, and it was returned to the Court by the Post Office.
4 By registered letter from the Registrar to Ms Jenkins of 4 June 2013, a copy of which was sent to the applicant, Ms Jenkins was reminded that she had not responded to the correspondence of 30 January and 13 February 2013, and she was asked to indicate whether she was still the applicant’s representative for the purposes of these proceedings. It was stipulated that, if this was no longer the case, it was for her to inform the applicant that it was incumbent on him to appoint a new representative by 28 June 2013 at the latest. Her attention was also drawn to the fact that, in accordance with settled case-law (order of 3 October 2011 in Case T-128/09 Meridiana and Meridiana fly v Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraph 11 and the case-law cited), if a new representative was not appointed, the Court could consider that to be sufficient evidence that the applicant no longer had an interest in the outcome of the case and decide of its own motion that there was there was no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.
5 Ms Jenkins did not respond to that letter either.
6 Furthermore, the Registrar, who was contacted informally by the applicant following receipt of the copy letter sent to Ms Jenkins, advised the applicant of the need to appoint formally a new representative who must lodge a certificate that he is authorised to practise before a court of a Member State or of another State party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, in accordance with Article 44(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. However, no action was taken in relation to that request.
7 Accordingly, the Court considers that the failure to appoint formally a new legal representative is in this case sufficient evidence that the applicant no longer has a legal interest in bringing proceedings (see, to that effect, order of 16 May 2012 in Case T-444/09 La City v OHIM, not published in the ECR, paragraph 12).
8 In those circumstances, pursuant to the provisions of Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure, there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application.
Costs
9 Article 87(6) of the Rules of Procedure provides that, where a case does not proceed to judgment, the costs shall be in the discretion of the Court.
10 In this case, since the application was not served on OHIM, the latter has not incurred any costs.
11 Furthermore, the applicant shall bear his own costs.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber)
hereby orders that:
1) There is no need to adjudicate on the application.
2) J. Yaqub shall bear his own costs.
Done at Luxembourg, 12 September 2013.