ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber)
5 May 2014(1)
(Community trade mark – Opposition – Withdrawal of the opposition – No need to adjudicate)
In Case T-518/11,
BTL Diffusion, established in St Cloud (France), represented by A. Berendes, lawyer,
applicant,
v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by K. Klüpfel and D. Botis, acting as Agents,
defendant,
the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court, being
dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG, established in Karlsruhe (Germany), represented by C. Mellein and B. Beinert, lawyers,
ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2011 (Case R 883/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between dm‑drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG and BTL Diffusion,
THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber),
composed of A. Dittrich (Rapporteur), President, J. Schwarcz, V. Tomljenović, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
1 By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court on 12 March 2014, the intervener informed the Court of an agreement between itself and the applicant and that, pursuant to that agreement, it had withdrawn its opposition to the application for registration of the contested trade mark. It also informed the Court that, under that agreement, each party was to bear its own costs.
2 By letter lodged at the Registry on 20 March 2014, the defendant informed the Court that it raised no objection to that purpose. It further requested the Court not to order it to pay the costs.
3 The applicant did not lodge any observations.
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 it (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 each half of 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, 5 May 2014.