Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber)

18 September 2019 (*)

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

In Case T‑142/19,

Nosio SpA, established in Mezzocorona (Italy), represented by J. Graffer and A. Ottolini, lawyers,

applicant,

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by M.L. Capostagno and H. O’Neill, acting as Agents,

defendant,

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

Passi AG, established in Rothrist (Switzerland),

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 November 2018 (Case R 927/2018‑2), relating to opposition proceedings between Passi and Nosio,

THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber),

composed of I. Pelikánová, President, P. Nihoul (Rapporteur) and J. Svenningsen, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

having regard to the application lodged at the Court Registry on 1 March 2019,

having regard to the response lodged at the Court Registry on 10 May 2019,

makes the following

Order

 Background to the dispute and procedure

1        On 25 September 2015 the applicant, Nosio SpA, filed an application for registration of an EU trade mark with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1), as amended (replaced by Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1)).

2        Registration as a mark was sought for the word sign PASSIATA.

3        On 18 February 2016 Passi AG filed a notice of opposition, pursuant to Article 41 of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 46 of Regulation 2017/1001), to registration of the mark applied for in respect of all the goods for which registration was sought.

4        On 26 March 2018 the Opposition Division upheld the opposition in its entirety.

5        On 18 May 2018 the applicant filed a notice of appeal with EUIPO, pursuant to Articles 66 to 71 of Regulation 2017/1001, against the decision of the Opposition Division.

6        By decision of 23 November 2018, the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO dismissed the appeal before it and concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion.

7        By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 5 June 2019, EUIPO stated to the Court that Passi had informed it of the withdrawal of the opposition to the application for registration of the contested mark following an amicable settlement between Passi and the applicant.

8        Invited by the Court to submit its observations on EUIPO’s letter of 5 June 2019, the applicant stated by letter of 25 June 2019 that it took note of the withdrawal of the opposition in question.

 Law

9        According to Article 131(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the Court may at any time, of its own motion, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the parties, declare that the action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on it.

10      In the present case, the Court considers that it has sufficient information from the documents in the file and has decided, pursuant to Article 131(1) of the Rules of Procedure, to rule on the action without taking further steps in the proceedings.

11      In the present case, since Passi has withdrawn its opposition, it must be held that the present action has become devoid of purpose.

 Costs

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

13      In the circumstances of the present case, it must be noted that the fact that the case does not proceed to judgment stems from an amicable settlement between the applicant and Passi.

14      Since EUIPO was not involved in the amicable settlement in question, it must be held that it does not have to bear the costs.

15      Accordingly, the applicant must be ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by EUIPO.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber)

hereby orders:

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

2.      Nosio SpA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

Luxembourg, 18 September 2019.

*      Language of the case: English.

© European Union
The source of this judgment is the Europa web site. The information on this site is subject to a information found here: Important legal notice. This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment.