Corte di giustizia UE n. 1561/2016

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 20 January 2016 ( * ) (Appeal — Community trade mark — No need to adjudicate) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑383/15 P, APPEAL under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 56 of the Statute of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], brought on 15 July 2015, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in Dublin (Ireland), represented by A. Carboni and M. Browne, Solicitors, appellant, the other parties to the proceedings being: Office for Harmonisation in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Designs) (OHIM), represented by P. Bullock, acting as Agent, defendant at first instance, Sky plc, formerly [OSCURATO:PERSONA] plc, established in Isleworth ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), Sky IP [OSCURATO:PERSONA], established in Isleworth, represented by D. Rose and J. Curry, Solicitors, interveners at first instance, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), President of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], C. Toader, A. Rosas, A. Prechal and E. Jarašiūnas, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: M. [OSCURATO:PERSONA]Bordona, Registrar: A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], having regard to the written procedure, having decided, after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], to give a decision by reasoned order, in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 149 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], makes the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 By its appeal, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA]’) seeks to have set aside the judgment of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 5 May 2015 in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v OHIM — Sky and Sky IP [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (skype) (T‑423/12, EU:T:2015:260; ‘the judgment under appeal’), by which that court dismissed its action seeking the annulment of the decision of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA] and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 July 2012 ([OSCURATO:PERSONA] R 1561/2010-4) concerning opposition proceedings between [OSCURATO:PERSONA] plc, now Sky plc, and Sky IP [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (‘the Sky companies’), on the one hand, and [OSCURATO:PERSONA], on the other. The background to the dispute, the judgment under appeal and the procedure before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice 2 On 28 June 2005, the company of which [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is the successor, by virtue of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), filed an application at OHIM for registration of the following figurative sign as a Community trade mark for services in Classes 9, 38 and 42 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended: 3 On 13 June 2006, the Sky companies brought opposition proceedings against the registration as a trade mark of the figurative sign at issue. 4 By decision of 6 July 2010, OHIM’s [OSCURATO:PERSONA] upheld the opposition. 5 On 11 August 2010, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] filed an appeal against that decision. 6 By decision of 26 July 2012, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal dismissed the appeal. 7 By the judgment under appeal, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] dismissed the action brought by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] against the latter decision and ordered [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to pay the costs of the legal proceedings. 8 By its appeal, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] seeks to have the judgment under appeal set aside and an order that OHIM and the Sky companies pay the costs in respect of the costs incurred by each of them and by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in this appeal and the costs incurred in the proceedings before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Appeal of OHIM and before OHIM’s [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 9 On 30 October 2015, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the Sky companies, by a letter signed by their lawyers, informed the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] that, following an agreement in wider-ranging litigation between them, the Sky companies withdrew the opposition to the registration as a trade mark of the figurative sign at issue and that, in consequence, there was no longer any need to rule on the appeal. 10 By letter of 9 November 2015, OHIM stated that it did not have any observations in that regard and asked that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] be ordered to pay the costs. The appeal 11 It is not in dispute that the agreement reached by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the Sky companies has led to the withdrawal by the Sky companies of the opposition proceedings which they had filed against the application made by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for registration and has the effect of ending the dispute concerning that opposition. 12 In those circumstances, it is clear that there is no need to rule on the present appeal. Costs 13 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 149 of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice, which applies to appeals by virtue of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 190 of those Rules, where a case does not proceed to judgment the costs shall be in the discretion of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 14 In accordance with Articles 142 and 184(1) of those Rules, in that case, the order as to costs is to be made freely by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], subject, however, to the provisions of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 184(2) to (4). 15 In the present case, there is no need to rule because of the agreement reached between [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and the Sky companies. It follows therefrom that the appellant and the interveners at first instance are responsible for there being no need to rule. 16 The procedure before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] involved a written part, in which, however, the interveners at first instance did not participate. In consequence, in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 184(4) of the Rules of Procedure, those interveners may not be ordered to pay costs in the present proceedings. 17 Accordingly, it is appropriate to order the appellant to pay the costs of these proceedings. 18 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] does not make an order as to costs at first instance since there has been no need to rule on the present appeal and, accordingly, the judgment under appeal has not been set aside. On those grounds, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby orders: 1. There is no need to rule on the appeal. 2. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall pay the costs of the present proceedings. [Signatures] * Language of the case: English.