In Case T-408/07

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)

4 February 2010 (1)

(Community trade mark – Revocation – Withdrawal of the request for revocation – No need to adjudicate)

In Case T-408/07,

Crunch Fitness International Inc., established in New York (United States), represented initially by J. Barry, Solicitor, and subsequently by H. Johnson, Barrister,

applicant,

v

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

defendant,

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

ILG Ltd, established in Dun Laoghaire (Ireland), represented by A. von Mühlendahl, lawyer,

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 August 2007 (Case R 1168/2005-4), relating to revocation proceedings between ILG Ltd and Crunch Fitness International Inc.,

THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber),

composed of M. E. Martins Ribeiro, President, S.Papasavvas, N.Wahl (Rapporteur), Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the present

Order

1By letter lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 31 December 2009, the intervener informed the Court of an agreement reached with the applicant and that, pursuant to that agreement, it was withdrawing its request for revocation of the contested mark. As a consequence, it informed the Court that the present case has become devoid of purpose and, thus, it requested that the Court make an order that there is no need to adjudicate the dispute. It also informed the Court that, under that agreement, each party was to bear its own costs and that, should the defendant request an order for costs, both the applicant and the intervener should each bear half of such.

2By letter lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 15 January 2010, the applicant confirmed the existence of a settlement between it and the intervener, and that, as a consequence, the present case has become devoid of purpose. It also confirmed that the agreement extended to costs and that, as a result, each party was to bear its own costs. With regard to the costs of the defendant, it agreed with the intervener that, if the defendant should seek an order for costs, such should be borne equally by it and by the intervener.

3By letter lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 21 January 2010, the defendant informed the Court that it agreed with the application lodged by the intervener that the case has become devoid of purpose and that there is no need to adjudicate on it. The defendant requested the Court not to order it to pay costs.

4Pursuant to Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure, it suffices in the present case to hold that, in the light of the withdrawal of the request for revocation, the present action has become devoid of purpose.

5Article 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.

6In the present case, the Court considers that the applicant and the intervener should be ordered to bear their own costs and to each pay half of those incurred by the defendant.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Eighth Chamber)

hereby orders:

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

2.The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the defendant.

Luxembourg, 4 February 2010.

1 Language of the case: English.