6 June 2012(1)

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

In Case T-527/10,

Google, Inc., established in Wilmington (United States), represented by M. Kinkeldey and A. Bognár, lawyers,



Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by D. Botis, acting as Agent,


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

G-mail GmbH, (formerly Giersch Ventures LLC) established in Los Angeles (United States), represented by S. Eble, lawyer,

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2010 (Case R 342/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Giersch Ventures LLC and Google, Inc.,

THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber),

composed of H. Kanninen, President, N. Wahl, S. Soldevila Fragoso, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following


1        By letter lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 23 April 2012, the applicant and the intervener informed the General Court of an agreement between themselves and that, pursuant to that agreement, the intervener was withdrawing its opposition to the application for registration of the contested mark. They also informed the General Court that, under that agreement, each party was to bear its own costs.

2        By letter lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 10 May 2012, the defendant informed the General Court that it had no objection to the case being declared devoid of purpose. The defendant requested the General Court not to order it to pay the costs.

3        Pursuant to Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, it suffices in the present case to find that, in the light of the withdrawal of the opposition for registration, 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 General Court.

5        In the present case, the General 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,


hereby orders:

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

1.      The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the defendant.

Luxembourg, 6 June 2012 .

E. Coulon

        H. Kanninen