ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber)

25 October 2011 (1)

(Community trade mark – Opposition – Withdrawal of the opposition – No need to adjudicate)

In Case T-287/08,

Cadila Healthcare Ltd, established in Ahmedabad (India), represented by S. Bailey, F. Potin and A. Juaristi, lawyers,

applicant,

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent,

defendant,

the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM being

Laboratorios Inibsa, SA, established in Llisa de Vall (Spain),

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 May 2008 (Case R 1322/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Inibsa, SA, and Cadila Healthcare Ltd,

THE GENERAL COURT (Fifth Chamber),

composed of S. Papasavvas, President, V. Vadapalas, K. O’Higgins (Rapporteur), Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

1        At the public hearing of 15 September 2011, the applicant informed the Court that the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was withdrawing its opposition to the application for registration of the contested trade mark and stated that, in its view, there was no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action. It did not seek an order as to costs.

2        At the public hearing of 15 September 2011, the defendant confirmed that the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal withdrew its opposition and agreed with the request for an order that there was no need to adjudicate. The defendant requests the Court not to order it to pay 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 the applicant must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay 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 shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the defendant.

Luxembourg, 25 October 2011.

E. Coulon

        S. Papasavvas

Registrar

       President