ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)
1 June 2015 (1)
(Community trade mark – Opposition – Withdrawal of the opposition – No need to adjudicate)
In Case T-355/11,
Jorge Segovia Bonet, residing in Madrid (Spain), represented initially by M. López Camba and J. L. Rivas Zurdo and subsequently by J. L. Rivas Zurdo, E. Seijo Veiguela and I. Munilla Muñoz, lawyers,
applicant,
v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by J. F. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent,
defendant,
the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court, being
IES Insurance Engineering Services Srl, established in Milan (Italy), represented by D. Caneva, G. Locurto and M. Lucchini, lawyers,
ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 March 2011 (Case R 749/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Jorge Segovia Bonet and IES Insurance Engineering Services Srl,
THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber),
composed of A. Dittrich (Rapporteur), President, I. Wiszniewska-Białecka, M. Prek, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
1 By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court on 17 April 2015, the intervener informed the Court that the applicant and itself reached an agreement on the coexistence of the trademarks in dispute. It also informed the Court that, under that agreement, each party was to bear its own costs. It requested the Court to close the case with no decision on costs.
2 By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court on 17 April 2015, the applicant confirmed that the intervener and itself reached an agreement on the coexistence of the trademarks and informed the Court that, pursuant to that agreement, it has withdrawn its opposition to the registration of the contested mark. Consequently, the applicant requested the Court to close the case without issuing a decision on the costs as the intervener and the applicant agreed to bear their own costs.
3 By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court on 11 May 2015, the defendant informed the Court that it raised no objection to the case being declared devoid of purpose. As this was a direct result of a settlement between the applicant and the intervener, 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, 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.
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 (Seventh 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, 1 June 2015.