18 June 2014 (1)

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

In Case T-478/13,

NumberFour AG, established in Berlin (Germany), represented by C. Götz, lawyer,



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


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

Inaer Helicópteros, S.A., established in Mutxamel (Spain), represented by C. Giner Mas and R. Rodríguez Zaragoza, lawyers,

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fith Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 May 2013 (Case R 1000/2012-5), relating to opposition proceedings between NumberFour AG and Inaer Helicópteros, S.A.,

THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber),

composed of G. Berardis, President, O. Czúcz (Rapporteur), A. Popescu, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following


1        By letters lodged at the Registry of the Court on 16 April 2014, the applicant and the intervener informed the Court that they reached an agreement and that, pursuant to that agreement, the intervener has withdrawn its opposition to the application for registration of the contested mark. It also informed the Court that, under that agreement, the applicant and the intervener have reached an agreement in respect of the costs.

2        By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court on 15 May 2014, the defendant confirmed that it raises no objection to the case being declared devoid of purpose. The defendant requests that the applicant be ordered to bear 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 of 3 July 2003, Lichtwer Pharma v OHIM – Biofarma (Sedonium), T‑10/01, ECR, EU:T:2003:182, 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 and the intervener must be ordered to bear their own respective costs and to pay those incurred by the defendant.

On those grounds,


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, 18 June 2014.

E. Coulon

        G. Berardis