ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE NINTH CHAMBER
OF THE GENERAL COURT

7 May 2014(1)

(Removal from the register)

In Case T-139/12,

Wehmeyer GmbH & Co. KG, established in Aachen (Germany), represented by C. Weil, lawyer,

applicant,

v

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

defendant,

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

Cluett, Peabody & Co. Inc., established in New York (United States of America), represented by V. Baxter and D. Rose, Solicitors,

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2012 (Case R 2509/2010‑1), relating to opposition proceedings between Wehmeyer GmbH & Co. KG and Cluett, Peabody & Co. Inc.,

1        By letter lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 14 March 2014, the applicant informed the Court in accordance with Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure that it wished to discontinue proceedings and due to an amicable settlement between the parties each party should bear their own costs.

2        By letter lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 27 March 2014, the intervener informed the Court that it agrees to the discontinuance as the parties have reached an amicable settlement according to which each party should bear its own costs.

3        By letter lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 1 April 2014, the defendant informed the Court that it had no observations to make concerning the discontinuance of the proceedings and requested that it should not be ordered to bear the costs.

4        The first subparagraph of Article 87(5) of the Rules of Procedure provides that a party who discontinues is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the observations of the other party on the discontinuance. Further, according to the second subparagraph of Article 87(5) of the Rules of Procedure, where the parties have come to an agreement on costs, the order for costs shall be in accordance with that agreement.

5        By its application that it should not be ordered to bear the costs the defendant essentially submitted that the applicant should be ordered to bear the costs (order of 27 April 2006 in Case T-377/03 ATI Technologies v OHIMAsociación de Técnicos de Informatica (ATI), not published in the ECR, paragraph 6).

6        The case should therefore be removed from the register, the applicant ordered to bear its own costs and those of the defendant, and the intervener be ordered to bear its own costs.

On those grounds,

THE PRESIDENT OF THE NINTH CHAMBER
OF THE GENERAL COURT

hereby orders:

1.      Case T-139/12 is removed from the register of the General Court.

2.

3.      The applicant shall bear its own costs and those of the defendant.

4.      The intervener shall bear its own costs.

Luxembourg, 7 May 2014.

E. Coulon

        G. Berardis

Registrar

       President