ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber)

27 April 2015 (*)

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

In Case T‑581/14,

Yvonne Vierling, residing in Cologne (Germany), represented by G. Hasselblatt and D. Kipping, lawyers,

applicant,

v

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

defendant,

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

IP Leanware, established in Issoire (France),

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 April 2014 (Case R 1486/2013-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Yvonne Vierling and IP Leanware,

THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber),

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

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

1        By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 9 March 2015, the applicant informed the Court of an agreement between herself and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and that, following that agreement, she had withdrawn her opposition to the application for registration of the mark at issue. In that regard, she provided the Court with a copy of the letter of 9 March 2015, by which she informed the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of the withdrawal of that opposition. The applicant stated that she considered that there was no longer any need to give a ruling on the present action and mentioned, without specifying the content thereof, that an agreement had been reached between herself and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM concerning the costs.

2        By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 31 March 2015, OHIM stated that it had no objections to the case being declared as being devoid of purpose. OHIM applied for the costs not to be imposed on it because the fact that there is no longer any need to adjudicate was due to an agreement between the applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

3        In accordance with Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, it suffices, in the present case, to declare that, having regard to the withdrawal of the opposition, the present action had become devoid of purpose. It follows that there is no longer any need to adjudicate (order of 3 July 2003 in 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 to be in the discretion of the Court.

5        In the circumstances of the present case, the Court considers that the applicant should be ordered to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Ninth Chamber)

hereby orders:

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

2.      Ms Yvonne Vierling shall bear her own costs and pay those incurred by OHIM.

Luxembourg, 27 April 2015.

E. Coulon

       G. Berardis

Registrar

       President