CELEX: 62015CO0363
Language: en
Date: 2016-07-21 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 July 2016.#Louis Vuitton Malletier v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Appeal — European Union trade mark — No need to adjudicate.#Joined Cases C-363/15 P and C-364/15 P.

ORDER OF THE COURT (First Chamber)
      21 July 2016 (*)
      
      (Appeal — European Union trade mark — No need to adjudicate)
      In Joined Cases C‑363/15 P and C‑364/15 P,
      APPEALS under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, lodged on 9 July 2015,
      Louis Vuitton Malletier SA, established in Paris (France), represented by P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, F. Rossi, and N. Parrotta, avvocati,
      
      appellant,
      the other parties to the proceedings being:
      European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by P. Bullock and D. Hanf, acting as Agents,
      
      defendant at first instance,
      Nanu-Nana Handelsgesellschaft mbH für Geschenkartikel & Co. KG, established in Berlin (Germany), represented by T. Boddien and A. Nordemann, Rechtsanwälte,
      
      intervener at first instance,
      THE COURT (First Chamber),
      composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, A Arabadjiev, J.‑C. Bonichot, C.G. Fernlund (Rapporteur) and S. Rodin,
         Judges,
      
      Advocate General: M. Wathelet
      Registrar: A. Calot Escobar
      having regard to the written procedure,
      having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to give a decision by reasoned order, pursuant to Article 149 of the Rules
         of Procedure of the Court of Justice, applicable to the procedure on appeal by virtue of Article 190 of those rules,
      
      makes the following
      Order
      1        By its appeals, Louis Vuitton Malletier SA (‘Louis Vuitton’) seeks to have set aside:
      
      –        the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 21 April 2015 in Louis Vuitton Malletier v OHIM — Nanu-Nana (Representation of a brown and beige chequerboard pattern) (T‑359/12, EU:T:2015:215), by which that court dismissed its application
         for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 4 May
         2012 (Case R 1855/2011-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Nanu-Nana Handelsgesellschaft mbH für Geschenkartikel
         & Co. KG (‘Nanu-Nana’) and Louis Vuitton,
      
      –        the judgment of the General Court of 21 April 2015 in Louis Vuitton Malletier v OHIM — Nanu-Nana (Representation of a grey chequerboard pattern) (T‑360/12, not published, EU:T:2015:214), by which that court dismissed its
         application for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 May 2012 (Case R 1854/2011-1), relating
         to invalidity proceedings between those parties.
      
      2        Louis Vuitton also seeks an order that EUIPO and Nanu-Nana pay the costs of the appeals. 
      
      3        By order of the President of the Court of 17 November 2015, Cases C‑363/15 P and C‑364/15 P were joined for the purposes of
         the written and oral stages of the procedure and the judgment. 
      
      4        By letter of 20 June 2016 signed by their respective lawyers, Louis Vuitton and Nanu-Nana informed the Court that they had
         reached an amicable settlement on the basis of which Nanu-Nana was to withdraw its actions for a declaration of invalidity
         in respect of the EU trade marks registered under Nos 370445 and 6587851 held by Louis Vuitton and that, as a result, there
         was no longer any need to adjudicate on the appeals. 
      
      5        By letter of 23 June 2016, EUIPO indicated that it had no observations in that regard and requested that Louis Vuitton be
         ordered to pay the costs because the fact that there is no need to proceed to judgment is due to the settlement reached by
         Louis Vuitton and Nanu-Nana. 
      
       The appeal
      6        It is common ground that the settlement reached by Louis Vuitton and Nanu-Nana has led to the latter withdrawing its applications
         for a declaration of invalidity in respect of the figurative EU trade marks at issue. 
      
      7        In those circumstances, it is clear that there is no need to rule on the present appeals. 
      
       Costs
      8        Under Article 149 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, which applies to appeals by virtue of Article 190 of
         those rules, where a case does not proceed to judgment, the costs are in the discretion of the Court. 
      
      9        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
         Court, subject, however, to the provisions of Article 184(2) to (4). 
      
      10      In the circumstances, there is no need to give a decision in the present case because a settlement has been reached between
         Louis Vuitton and Nanu-Nana. It follows therefrom that the appellant and the intervener at first instance are responsible
         for there being no need to rule. 
      
      11      The procedure before the Court has entailed a written stage, in which Nanu-Nana participated. In consequence, in accordance
         with Article 184(4) of the Rules of Procedure, Nanu-Nana must be ordered to bear its own costs in the present proceedings.
         
      
      12      It follows that Louis Vuitton must be ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by EUIPO in the present
         proceedings. 
      
      On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby orders:
      1.      There is no need to adjudicate on the appeals.
      2.      Nanu-Nana Handelsgesellschaft mbH für Geschenkartikel & Co. KG shall pay its own costs in Case C‑363/15 P and Case C‑364/15
            P.
      3.      Louis Vuitton Malletier SA shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property
            Office (EUIPO) in Case C‑363/15 P and Case C‑364/15 P.
      [Signatures]
      * Language of the case: English.