ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber)
24 October 2012 (1)
(Community trade mark – Opposition – Withdrawal of the opposition – No need to adjudicate)
In Case T-212/07 RENV,
Harman International Industries, Inc., established in Northridge, California (United States), represented by M. Vanhegan, Barrister,
applicant,
v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by G. Schneider, acting as Agent,
defendant,
the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court, being
Barbara Becker, residing in Miami, Florida (United States), represented by
P. Baronikians, lawyer,
ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of
7 March 2007 (Case R 502/2006-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Harman International Industries, Inc. and Barbara Becker,
THE GENERAL COURT (Seventh Chamber),
composed of A. Dittrich, President, I. Wiszniewska-Białecka (Rapporteur),
M. Kancheva, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
1 By letter lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 3 September 2012, the defendant informed the Court of an agreement between the applicant and the intervener and that, pursuant to that agreement, the applicant has withdrawn its opposition to the application for registration of the contested mark. The defendant stated that, in its view, there was no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action. The defendant requests the Court not to order it to pay the costs.
2 By letter lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 2 October 2012, the applicant confirmed the existence of an amicable settlement between itself and the intervener, and signified its agreement to the request for an order that there was no need to adjudicate. It did not seek an order as to costs.
3 The intervener did not lodge any observations on the application for a decision that there is no need to adjudicate.
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 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 (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, 24 October 2012.