BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> Retail Royalty v EUIPO - Fashion Energy (Representation d'un aigle) (European Union trade mark - Order) [2022] EUECJ T-226/21_CO (30 March 2022) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2022/T22621_CO.html Cite as: EU:T:2022:204, [2022] EUECJ T-226/21_CO, ECLI:EU:T:2022:204 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber)
30 March 2022 (*)
(European Union trade mark — Cancellation proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for revocation — No need to adjudicate)
In Case T-226/21,
Retail Royalty Co., established in Las Vegas, Nevada (United States), represented by J. Bogatz and Y. Stone, lawyers,
applicant,
v
European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by D. Walicka, acting as Agent,
defendant,
the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO being
Fashion Energy Srl, established in Milan (Italy),
ACTION brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 February 2021 (Case R 2813/2019-5) relating to cancellation proceedings between Fashion Energy and Retail Royalty Company,
THE GENERAL COURT (Sixth Chamber),
composed of A. Marcoulli, President, S. Frimodt Nielsen and R. Norkus (Rapporteur), Judges,
Registrar: E. Coulon,
makes the following
Order
1 By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 11 March 2022, the applicant informed the Court of an agreement between the applicant itself and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and that, pursuant to that agreement, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was withdrawing its application for revocation of the contested mark. It did not seek an order as to costs.
2 By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 22 March 2022, the defendant raised no objection to the case being declared devoid of purpose. The defendant requests the Court not to order it to pay the 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 application for revocation, the present action has become devoid of purpose. There is therefore no longer any need to adjudicate on the action (order of 3 July 2003, 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 (Sixth Chamber)
hereby orders:
1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.
2. Retail Royalty Co. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).
Luxembourg, 30 March 2022.
E. Coulon | A. Marcoulli |
Registrar | President |
* 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.
BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2022/T22621_CO.html
