ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber)
3 February 2014 (1)
(Community trade mark – Opposition – Withdrawal of the opposition – No need to adjudicate)
In Case T-198/13,
Imax Corporation, established in Mississauga (Canada), represented by V. von Bomhard, lawyer and K. Hughes, Solicitor,
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
Himax Technologies, Inc., established in Hsinhua (Taiwan),
ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 January 2013 (Case R 740/2012-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Himax Technologies, Inc. and Imax Corporation,
THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber),
composed of S. Papasavvas (Rapporteur), President, N. J. Forwood and
E. Bieliūnas, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
1 By letter lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 19 December 2013, the applicant informed the Court that the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal had withdrawn its opposition to the application for registration of the contested trade mark. As a result, the action became devoid of purpose. The applicant further requested that no decision as to the costs be made by the Court.
2 By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court on 21 January 2014, the defendant confirmed that it raised no objection to the case being declared devoid of purpose and requested that it should not be ordered to bear 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 it is appropriate to order that each party is to bear its own costs.
On those grounds,
THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. There is no need to adjudicate on the action.
2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
Luxembourg, 3 February 2014.