Provisional text

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)

28 March 2017 (*)

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

In case T‑500/15,

LG Electronics, Inc., established in Seoul (Republic of Korea), represented by M. Graf, lawyer,

applicant,

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by L. Rampini, acting as Agent,

defendant,

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

Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH, established in Berlin (Germany), represented by A. Wulff and U. Hildebrandt, lawyers,

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 June 2015 (Case R 1940/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH and LG Electronics, Inc.,

THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)

composed of A. M. Collins, President, M. Kancheva (Rapporteur) and J. Passer, Judges,

Registrar : E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

1        By letters lodged at the Court Registry on 30 November 2016 and on 8 December 2016, the applicant informed the Court that it wished to discontinue the proceedings since it had withdrawn its application for registration of the contested mark and, in its view, the action had therefore become devoid of purpose. It sought no order as to costs.

2        By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 5 December 2016, the defendant informed the Court that it had no objection to the discontinuance of the proceedings and requested that the applicant be ordered to bear the costs.

3        By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 12 December 2016, the intervener informed the Court that it had agreed to discontinue the proceedings and requested that the applicant be ordered to bear the costs.

4        By measure of organisation of procedure of 7 February 2017, the Court requested the parties to set out their views on the consequences, for the action, of the withdrawal of the application for registration of the contested mark, in the light of Article 131 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, pursuant to which the Court may, at any time, of its own motion, after hearing the parties, declare that the action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no need to adjudicate on it.

5        By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 17 February 2017, the applicant confirmed that it had withdrawn the application for the contested mark and that the proceedings had become devoid of purpose. It added that no order as to costs was necessary, since no hearing had been held, the defendant did not request the reimbursement of its legal costs and the intervener had only filed a formal writ.

6        By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 17 February 2017, the defendant confirmed that the application for the contested mark had been validly withdrawn. It had therefore no objection to the cases being declared devoid of purpose, but requested not to be ordered to bear the costs.

7        By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 22 February 2017, the intervener agreed that the action had become devoid of purpose. It added that the case at issue, in which the applicant had withdrawn its trade mark application, was akin to an application to discontinue the proceedings. It therefore requested that the applicant be ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings, including those of the intervener.

8        Pursuant to Articles 130 and 131 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 registration, 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).

9        Article 137 of the Rules of Procedure provides that, where a case does not proceed to judgment, the costs shall be in the discretion of the Court.

10      In the circumstances of 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 and by the intervener.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)

hereby orders :

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

2.      LG Electronics, Inc., shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH.

Luxembourg, 28 March 2017.

E. Coulon

A. M. Collins

Registrar

President