23 October 2012 (1)

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

In Case T-181/11,

Chivas Holdings (IP) Ltd, established in Paisley, Renfrewshire (United Kingdom), represented by A. Carboni, Solicitor,



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


the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court, being

Glencairn Scotch Whisky Co. Ltd, established in Glasgow (United Kingdom), represented by K. Lumsdaine, Solicitor,

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2011 (Case R 1263/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Glencairn Scotch Whisky Co. Ltd and Chivas Holdings (IP) Ltd,

THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth Chamber),

composed of I. Pelikánová, President, K. Jürimäe (Rapporteur),
M. van der Woude, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following


1        By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court on 20 September 2012, the applicant informed the Court of an agreement between itself and the intervener and that, pursuant to that agreement, the intervener has withdrawn its opposition to the application for registration of the contested trade mark. The applicant stated that, in its view, there was no longer any need for the Court to adjudicate on the present action. It also informed the Court that, under that agreement, no costs will be payable by either side.

2        By letter lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 1 October 2012, the defendant informed the General Court that it raises no objection to the case being declared devoid of purpose and requests the Court not to order it to pay the costs.

3        The intervener did not lodge any observations on the application for a decision that there is no need to adjudicate.

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 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 the applicant and the intervener must be ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the defendant.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Fourth 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, 23 October 2012.

E. Coulon

        I. Pelikánová