[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) >> Sam McKnight v EUIPO - Carolina Herrera (COOL GIRL) (EU trade mark - Order) [2021] EUECJ T-176/20_CO (11 February 2021) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2021/T17620_CO.html Cite as: [2021] EUECJ T-176/20_CO, EU:T:2021:94, ECLI:EU:T:2021:94

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

ORDER OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber)

11 February 2021 (*)

(EU trade mark – Revocation of the contested decision – Action which has become devoid of purpose – No need to adjudicate)

In Case T‑176/20,

Sam McKnight Ltd, established in London (United Kingdom), represented by V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers,

applicant,

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by P. Sipos, acting as Agent,

defendant,

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

Carolina Herrera Ltd, established in New York, New York (United States), represented by E. Stoyanov Edissonov and I. Robledo McClymont, lawyers,

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 January 2020 (Case R 689/2019‑4), relating to opposition proceedings between Carolina Herrera and Sam McKnight,

THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber),

composed of V. Tomljenović, President, P. Škvařilová-Pelzl (Rapporteur) and I. Nõmm, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

1        By document lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 30 March 2020, the applicant, Sam McKnight Ltd, brought the present action seeking annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 30 January 2020 (Case R 689/2019‑4), relating to opposition proceedings between itself and the intervener, Carolina Herrera Ltd (‘the contested decision’).

2        By document lodged at the Court Registry on 3 June 2020, EUIPO requested that the proceedings be stayed on the ground that it intended to revoke the contested decision.

3        The applicant having signalled its agreement when questioned in that regard by the Court, the President of the Second Chamber of the Court decided, on 20 July 2020, to stay the proceedings, in accordance with Article 69(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, until the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO had taken a decision on the revocation of the contested decision.

4        By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 24 November 2020, EUIPO informed the Court that, by decision of 24 August 2020, the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO had revoked the contested decision (‘the revocation decision’) and that, since no appeal had been brought against that revocation decision, it had become final. Accordingly, EUIPO requested that the Court conclude, in accordance with Article 130(2) of the Rules of Procedure, that, since the present action had become devoid of purpose, there was no longer any need to adjudicate on it.

5        By document lodged at the Court Registry on 26 November 2020, the applicant signified its agreement with EUIPO’s application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate, and submitted that EUIPO should be ordered to pay the costs. By document lodged at the Court Registry on 9 December 2020, the intervener stated that it had no objections in that regard.

6        Under Article 130(2) and (7) of its Rules of Procedure, if a party so requests, the General Court may declare that the action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on it. In the present case, as EUIPO has requested that the Court declare that the action has become devoid of purpose and that there is no need to adjudicate, the Court, taking the view that it has sufficient information from the documents in its possession, has decided to rule on that request without taking further steps in the proceedings.

7        In that regard, it is sufficient to note that, in the light of the revocation decision – which has become final – the action has become devoid of purpose. It follows that there is no longer any need to adjudicate.

8        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.

9        In the present case, it is clear from the revocation decision that the contested decision was revoked on the ground that it was vitiated by an obvious procedural error attributable to EUIPO. In those circumstances, the Court considers it appropriate to order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant and the intervener (see, to that effect, order of 9 March 2016, SGP Rechtsanwälte v OHIM – StoryDOCKS (tolino), T‑490/15, not published, EU:T:2016:166, paragraph 6).

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber)

hereby orders:

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

2.      The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Sam McKnight Ltd and Carolina Herrera Ltd.

Luxembourg, 11 February 2021.

*      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/2021/T17620_CO.html