ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)
12 September 2006 (*)
(Community trade mark – Opposition – Withdrawal of the opposition – No need to adjudicate)
In Case T-340/05,
Adler Modemärkte GmbH, established in Haibach (Germany), represented by R. Kaase, lawyer,
applicant,
v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by J. Novais Gonçalves, acting as Agent,
defendant,
the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance, being
BVM S.p.A., established in Bologna (Italy), represented by E. Racca, lawyer,
ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 May 2005 (Case R 434/2003-4),
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (First Chamber),
composed of: R. García-Valdecasas, President, J.D. Cooke and I. Labucka, Judges
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
1 By letter received at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 30 June 2006, the applicant informed the Court that the intervener had withdrawn its opposition to the Community trade mark application ‘Eagle’ and requested that the Court order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings on the basis that the applicant’s claim was well founded.
2 By letter received at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 7 July 2006, the intervener confirmed to the Court its agreement with the applicant to withdraw its opposition to the application for registration of ‘Eagle’ as a Community trade mark for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25 and formally withdraw the opposition.
3 By letter received at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 12 July 2006, the defendant informed the Court that it had been informed of the agreement between the applicant and the intervener and confirmed the valid withdrawal of the opposition. The defendant asked the Court not to order that it should bear any of the costs.
4 In accordance with Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, it is sufficient to rule that, in view of the withdrawal of the opposition, the present action has become devoid of purpose. There is therefore no need to rule on it (see the order in Case T-10/01 Lichtwer Pharma v OHIM – Biofarma (Sedonium) [2003] ECR II-2225, paragraphs 14 to 18).
5 Article 87(6) of the Rules of Procedure provides that where a case does not proceed to judgment the costs are at the discretion of the Court.
6 The present case will not proceed to judgment following the withdrawal of the opposition as agreed by the applicant and the intervener. Therefore, it is appropriate to order that the applicant and the intervener bear their own costs and that each bears half of the costs incurred by the defendant.
On those grounds,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. There is no need to rule on the action.
2. The applicant and the intervener shall each bear their own costs and each shall bear half of the costs incurred by the defendant.
Luxembourg, 12 September 2006.
E. Coulon | | R. García-Valdecasas |