ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (SIXTH CHAMBER)
18 February 2008 (*)
(Community trade mark – Refusal to register – Withdrawal of the application for registration – No need to adjudicate)
In Case T-389/07,
Earth Products Inc., established in Carlsbad (United States), represented by M. Graf, lawyer,
applicant,
v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by D. Botis, acting as Agent,
defendant,
the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance, being
Meynard Designs Inc., established in Waltham (United States), represented by E. Cornu and E. De Gryse, lawyers,
ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 August 2007 (Case R 1590/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Meynard Designs Inc. and Earth Products Inc.,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (SIXTH CHAMBER),
composed of A. W. H. Meij, President, V. Vadapalas, T. Tchipev, Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the present
Order
1 By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 12 December 2007, the applicant informed the Court of an agreement reached with the intervener and that, pursuant to that agreement, it was withdrawing its application for registration of the contested 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 of the Court on 21 December 2007, the defendant confirmed to the Court that, the application for a Community trade mark submitted by Earth Products Inc. had been withdrawn and that the case before the Court had therefore become devoid of purpose. The defendant requests the Court not to order it to pay the costs.
3 By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court on 2 January 2008, the intervener confirmed the existence of settlement with the applicant, including an agreement on costs.
4 Pursuant to Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, it suffices in the present case to hold that, in the light of the withdrawal of the application for registration, the present action has become devoid of purpose. There is therefore no longer any need to rule 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 each party should be ordered to bear its own costs.
On those grounds,
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (SIXTH CHAMBER)
hereby orders:
1. There is no need to rule on the action.
2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
Luxembourg, 18 February 2008.