ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)

22 June 2016 (1)

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

In Case T-4/16,

Rabbit, Inc., established in Redwood City (California, United States), represented by M. Engelman, Barrister and J. Stephenson, Solicitor,

applicant,

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by H. O’Neill, acting as Agent,

defendant,

the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO being

DMG Media Ltd, established in London (United Kingdom),

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 October 2015 (Case R 2133/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between DMG Media Ltd and Rabbit, Inc.,

THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber),

composed of D. Gratsias, President, M. Kancheva, N. Półtorak (Rapporteur), Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

1        By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 22 April 2016, the defendant informed the Court that the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal had validly withdrawn its opposition to the application for registration of the contested mark. It considered that the action brought before the General Court by the applicant became devoid of purpose and, therefore, there was no need to adjudicate on it. The defendant asked the Court to order that the costs of the proceedings shall not be borne by itself as this situation was part of a wider agreement between the opponent and the proprietor of the mark.

2        By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 8 June 2016, the applicant informed the Court that, as the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal had withdrawn its opposition and the Office considered the opposition to be validly withdrawn, it had no objection to the action being declared devoid of purpose and that there was therefore no need to adjudicate on the action. The applicant did not seek an order as to costs.

3        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 opposition, the present action has become devoid of purpose. There is therefore no longer any need to adjudicate on it (order of 3 July 2003 in Lichtwer Pharma v OHIM — Biofarma (Sedonium), T‑10/01, EU:T:2003:182, paragraphs 16 to 18).

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

5        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.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)

hereby orders:

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

2.

3.      Rabbit, Inc. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

Luxembourg, 22 June 2016.

E. Coulon

        D. Gratsias

Registrar

       President