ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)
28 January 2015 (1)
(Community trade mark – Opposition – Withdrawal of the opposition – No need to adjudicate)
In Case T-531/13,
Kicks Kosmetikkedjan AB, established in Stockholm (Sweden), represented by K. Strömholm, lawyer,
applicant,
v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by I. Harrington, acting as Agent,
defendant,
the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM being
Kik Textilien und Non-Food GmbH, established in Bönen (Germany), represented by S. Körber and L. Pechan, lawyers,
ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 July 2013 (Case R 992/2012-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Kik Textilien und Non-Food GmbH and Kicks Kosmetikkedjan AB,
THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber),
composed of M. van der Woude (Rapporteur), President, I. Wiszniewska-Białecka, I. Ulloa Rubio, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
1 By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court on 4 December 2014, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal informed the Court of an agreement between itself and the applicant and that, pursuant to that agreement, it was withdrawing its opposition to the application for registration of the contested mark.
2 By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court on 9 December 2014, the applicant confirmed the existence of an amicable settlement between itself and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. It also informed the Court that, under that agreement, each party was to bear its own costs.
3 By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court on 10 December 2014, the defendant informed the Court that the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal validly withdrew its opposition and that the case before the Court became therefore devoid of purpose. The defendant requests the Court not to order it to pay 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 opposition, 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.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. There is no need to adjudicate on the action.
2. The applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the defendant.
Luxembourg, 28 January 2015.
E. Coulon | | M. van der Woude |