ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber)
7 May 2013 (1)
(Community trade mark – Opposition – Withdrawal of the opposition – No need to adjudicate)
In Case T-246/12,
Cat Media Pty Ltd, established in Warriewood (Australia), represented by
I. De Freitas, Solicitor,
applicant,
v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by J. 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
Avon Products, Inc., established in New York (United States), represented by
U. Stelzenmüller, lawyer,
ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 March 2012 (Case R 740/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Avon Products, Inc. and Cat Media Pty Ltd,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber),
composed of S. Papasavvas, President (Rapporteur), V. Vadapalas, K. O’Higgins, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
1 By letter lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 11 April 2013, the intervener informed the Court that it has withdrawn its opposition to the application for registration of the contested mark. It did not seek an order as to costs.
2 By letter lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 29 April 2013, the defendant informed the Court that, Avon Productions Inc has withdrawn its opposition before the Office and therefore the Office has no objection to the case being declared devoid of purpose. The defendant requests the Court not to order it to pay the 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 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 (Fifth 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, 7 May 2013.