EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TB0355
Case T-355/11: Order of the General Court of 1 June 2015 — Segovia Bonet v OHIM — IES (IES) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Case T-355/11: Order of the General Court of 1 June 2015 — Segovia Bonet v OHIM — IES (IES) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Case T-355/11: Order of the General Court of 1 June 2015 — Segovia Bonet v OHIM — IES (IES) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)
OJ C 270, 17.8.2015, p. 26–26
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
Case T-355/11: Order of the General Court of 1 June 2015 — Segovia Bonet v OHIM — IES (IES) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)
Order of the General Court of 1 June 2015 — Segovia Bonet v OHIM — IES (IES)
(Case T-355/11) ( 1 )
‛(Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)’
2015/C 270/32Language of the case: EnglishParties
Applicant: Jorge Segovia Bonet (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially by M. López Camba and J.L. Rivas Zurdo, subsequently by J.L. Rivas Zurdo, E. Seijo Veiguela and I. Munilla Muñoz, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: IES Insurance Engineering Services Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva, G. Locurto and M. Lucchini, lawyers)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 March 2011 (Case R 749/2010-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Jorge Segovia Bonet and IES Insurance Engineering Services Srl.
Operative part of the order
|
1. |
There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
|
2. |
The applicant and the intervener are ordered to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant. |
( 1 ) OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.