In Case T-316/09

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber)

25 February 2010 (1)

(Community trade mark – Refusal to register – Restriction of the list of goods applied for – Waiver of the objection to registration – No need to adjudicate)

In Case T-316/09,

Google, Inc., established in Mountain View (United States), represented by A.Bognar and M. Kinkeldey, lawyers,

applicant,

v

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

defendant,

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 May 2009 (Case R 1622/2008-2), concerning the registration of the word mark “ANDROID” as a Community trade mark,

THE GENERAL COURT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (Third Chamber),

Composed of J.Azizi, President (Rapporteur), E.Cremona, S.Frimodt Nielsen, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the present

Order

1By letter lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 21 December 2009, the applicant informed the Court that it had reached a settlement with the defendant after it had restricted the list of goods for which it applied. It also informed the Court that, according to that settlement, each party was to bear its own costs.

2By letter lodged at the Registry of the Court on 19 January 2010, the defendant informed the Court that it had accepted the restriction of the list of goods proposed by the applicant and that it waived its objection to the registration of the word mark in question. As a consequence, it considered that the proceedings before the Court have become devoid of purpose. It also informed the Court that it had reached an agreement whereby each party was to bear its own costs.

3Pursuant to Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure, it suffices in the present case to hold that, in the light of the settlement between the parties, the present action has become devoid of purpose. There is therefore no longer any need to rule on the action (order in Case T‑10/01 Lichtwer Pharma v OHIM – Biofarma (Sedonium) [2003] ECR II‑2225, paragraphs 16 to 18).

4Article 87(6) of the Rules of Procedure provides that, where a case does not proceed to judgment, the costs are in the discretion of the Court.

5In the present case, the Court considers that the applicant and the defendant should be ordered to bear their own costs.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Third Chamber)

hereby orders:

1.There is no need to rule on the action.

2.The applicant and the defendant shall bear their own costs.

Luxembourg, 25 February 2010.

1 Language of the case: English.