ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)
14 July 2010 (1)
(Community trade mark – Opposition – Withdrawal of the opposition – Cancellation – Withdrawal of the cancellation – No need to adjudicate)
In joined Cases T-467/08 and T-153/09,
Isdin, SA, established in Barcelona (Spain), represented by M. Esteve Sanz, lawyer,
applicant,
v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by Ó. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agent,
defendant,
the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court, being
Pfizer Ltd, established in Sandwich (United Kingdom), represented by V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, lawyers and M. Hawkins, Solicitor,
ACTION brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 July 2008 (Case R 1031/2007-1) and of 22 January 2009 (Case R 390/2008-1), relating to opposition proceedings and cancellation action between Isdin S.A. and Pfizer Ltd.,
THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber),
composed of M. E. Martins Ribeiro, President, S. Papasavvas, N. Wahl, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
1 By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court on 8 June 2010, the applicant informed the Court of an agreement between itself and the intervener and that, pursuant to that agreement, the intervener was withdrawing its opposition to the application for registration of the contested mark (Case R 1301/2007-1) and its application for cancellation of the contested mark (Case R 390/2008-1). It also informed the Court that it had reached an agreement on costs with the intervener.
2 By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court on 10 June 2010, the intervener confirmed to 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 cancellation of the contested mark (Case R 1301/2007-1) and its application for registration of the contested mark (Case R 390/2008-1). It also informed the Court that it had reached an agreement on costs with the applicant.
3 By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court on 28 June 2010, the defendant informed the Court that it raised no objections to the case being declared devoid of purpose. The defendant requested 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 and the application for cancellation, 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).
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 and the intervener must be ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the defendant.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. There is no need to adjudicate on the action.
2. The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the defendant.
Luxembourg, 14 July 2010.
E. Coulon | | M. E. Martins Ribeiro |