ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)

17 March 2017 (1)

(European Union trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for revocation — No need to adjudicate)

In Case T-381/16,

Klaus Düll, residing in Südergellersen (Germany), represented by S. Wolff-Marting, lawyer,

applicant,

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent,

defendant,

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

Cognitect, Inc., established in Durham, North Carolina (United States),

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 April 2016 (Joined Cases R 1383/2015-2 and R 1481/2015-2), relating to cancellation proceedings between Cognitect, Inc. and Klaus Düll,

THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber),

composed of A. M. Collins, President, M. Kancheva (Rapporteur), R. Barents, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

1        By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 27 January 2017, the intervener informed the Court of an agreement between itself and the applicant pursuant to which it had withdrawn the application for revocation of the trade mark at issue. It also informed the Court that, under that agreement, each party was to bear its own costs. The intervener stated that the action had become devoid of purpose and that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on it.

2        By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 13 February 2017, the applicant confirmed the existence of a settlement between itself and the intervener, including a settlement that they were to bear their own costs. Further, the applicant confirmed that the action had become devoid of purpose and that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on it.

3        By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 20 February 2017, the defendant informed the Court that, by letter of 26 January 2017, it had itself been informed of the withdrawal of the revocation action. The defendant raised no objection to the case being declared devoid of purpose. The defendant requested the Court not to order it to pay the costs.

4        Pursuant to Article 130 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, it is sufficient in the present case to find that, in the light of the withdrawal of the application for revocation, the present action has become devoid of purpose. There is therefore no longer any need to adjudicate on the action (order of 3 July 2003 in Lichtwer Pharma v OHIM — Biofarma (Sedonium), T‑10/01, EU:T:2003:182, paragraphs 16 to 18).

5        Article 137 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 circumstances of 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 (Eighth Chamber)

hereby orders:

1.      There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

2.      Klaus Düll and Cognitect, Inc. shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

Luxembourg, 17 March 2017.

E. Coulon

        A. M. Collins

Registrar

       President