CELEX: 62013TB0359
Language: en
Date: 2014-05-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-359/13: Order of the General Court of 7 May 2014  — Spain Doce 13 v OHIM — Ovejero Jiménez and Becerra Guibert (VICTORIA DELEF) (Community trade mark — Registration refused in part — No need to adjudicate)

7.7.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 212/31
            
         Order of the General Court of 7 May 2014 — Spain Doce 13 v OHIM — Ovejero Jiménez and Becerra Guibert (VICTORIA DELEF)
   (Case T-359/13) (1)
   
   ((Community trade mark - Registration refused in part - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 212/39
   Language of the case: Spanish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Spain Doce 13, SL (Crevillente, Spain) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño, Agent)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Gregorio Ovejero Jiménez (Alicante, Spain) and María Luisa Cristina Becerra Guibert (Alicante) (represented by: M. Veiga Serrano, lawyer)
   
      Re:
   
   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 April 2013 (Case R 1046/2012-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Gregorio Ovejero Jiménez and María Luisa Cristina Becerra Guibert, on the one hand, and Spain Doce 13, on the other.
   
      Operative part of the order
   
   
               1.
            
            
               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and pay one half of the defendant’s costs.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               The interveners are ordered to bear their own costs and pay one half of the defendant’s costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.