23 January 2014 (1)

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

In Case T-141/12,

Pro-Duo NV, established in Ghent (Belgium), represented initially by
T. G. Alkin, Barrister and subsequently by T. G. Alkin and C. Hall, Barristers,



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


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

El Corte Inglés, SA, established in Madrid (Spain), represented by J. L. Rivas Zurdo, E. Seijo Veiguela and I. Munilla Muñoz, lawyers,

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2012 (Case R 1373/2011‑4), relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés, SA and Pro-Duo NV.

THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber),

composed of S. Papasavvas, President, N. J. Forwood and E. Bieliūnas (Rapporteur), Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following


1        By letter lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 28 November 2013, the intervener informed the Court of an agreement between itself and the applicant and declared the withdrawal of its opposition to the application for registration of the contested mark. It also informed the 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 5 December 2013, the defendant confirmed that it raises no objection to the case being declared devoid of purpose and requested that it should not be ordered to bear the costs.

3        By letter lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 13 December 2013, the applicant confirmed the existence of an amicable settlement between itself and the intervener. It also requested that the Court orders each party to bear its own costs.

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,


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 January 2014.

E. Coulon

        S. Papasavvas