ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber)
14 October 2013 (1)
(Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Renunciation of the national trade mark – Action devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate)
In Case T-128/13,
Vicente Gandia Pla, SA, established in Chiva (Spain), represented by
I. Temiño Ceniceros, lawyer,
applicant,
v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by L. Rampini, acting as Agent,
defendant,
the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM being
Tesco Stores Ltd, established in Cheshunt (United Kingdom),
ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 December 2012 (Case R 854/2012-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Tesco Stores Ltd and Vicente Gandia Pla, SA,
THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber),
composed of S. Frimodt Nielsen, President, F. Dehousse and A. Collins (Rapporteur), Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
1 By letter lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 2 August 2013, the defendant informed the Court that, in consequence of the renunciation by Tesco Stores Ltd of its national trade mark nº 1520720, cited in the opposition proceedings, it considered that the case had become devoid of purpose. The defendant further requested the Court not to order it to pay the costs of the proceedings.
2 By letters lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 21 August and
12 September 2013, the applicant informed the Court, regarding the consequences of the renunciation of 12 June 2013 by Tesco Stores Ltd of its national trade mark nº 1520720, that there was no need to adjudicate on the action. It sought no order as to costs.
3 Pursuant to Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, it suffices in the present case to find that, in view of the renunciation of the national trade mark on which the opposition had been founded before the Board of Appeal, 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 each of the parties should bear its own costs of the proceedings.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. There is no need to adjudicate on the action.
2. Each of the parties should bear its own costs.
Luxembourg, 14 October 2013.
E. Coulon | | S. Frimodt Nielsen |