Whitehorse Liquidity Partners v EUIPO - HIG Whitehorse Management (H.I.G. WHITEHORSE) (Removal from the Register - Order) [2024] EUECJ T-111/24_CO (16 May 2024)

Whitehorse Liquidity Partners v EUIPO - HIG Whitehorse Management (H. I. G. WHITEHORSE) (Removal from the Register - Order) [2024] EUECJ T-111/24_CO (16 May 2024) [ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [ DONATE ] 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) >> Whitehorse Liquidity Partners v EUIPO - HIG Whitehorse Management (H. I. G. WHITEHORSE) (Removal from the Register - Order) [2024] EUECJ T-111/24_CO (16 May 2024) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2024/T11124_CO.html Cite as: [2024] EUECJ T-111/24_CO [ New search ] [ Contents list ] [ Help ] ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SEVENTH CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT 16 May 2024 0F( * ) (Removal from the Register) In Case T-111/24, Whitehorse Liquidity Partners, Inc., established in Toronto, Ontario (Canada), represented by S. Geerlings, lawyer, applicant, v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by T. Klee, acting as Agent, defendant, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO being HIG Whitehorse Management LLC, established in Miami, Florida (United States), By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Whitehorse Liquidity Partners, Inc., seeks the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 December 2023 (Case R 123/2023-2). By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 10 April 2024, the applicant informed the Court, in accordance with Article 125 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, that it wished to discontinue proceedings. The applicant further stated that it had reached a confidential settlement of the dispute with the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, whereby they agreed that there would be no order as to costs. By letter lodged at the Court Registry on 24 April 2024, the defendant informed the Court that it had no objection to the discontinuance of the proceedings and that it had not incurred any recoverable costs in the present case. In case the applicant’s submission was to be interpreted in the sense that no costs are claimed, the defendant requested that the applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, in the event it has intervened, be ordered to pay their own costs in accordance with Article 136(4) of the Rules of Procedure or that the applicant be ordered to pay its own costs, as well as the costs of the said intervener in accordance with Article 136(1) of the Rules of Procedure. Article 136(1) of the Rules of Procedure provides that a party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings shall be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the other party’s observations on the discontinuance. Article 136(2) of the Rules of Procedure further provides that at the request of the party who discontinues or withdraws from proceedings, the costs shall be borne by the other party if this appears justified by the conduct of that party. Article 136(4) of the Rules of Procedure provides that, where proceedings are discontinued, if costs are not claimed, the parties shall bear their own costs. The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO has not intervened in the proceedings before the General Court pursuant to Article 173(2) of its Rules of Procedure. Therefore the applicant’s statement that itself and the said other party agreed that there would be no order as to costs has to be taken as meaning that the applicant makes no claim pursuant to Article 136(2) of the Rules of Procedure with regard to that party. The defendant having admitted that it has incurred no recoverable costs, its request that the applicant be ordered to pay the costs in accordance with Article 136(1) of the Rules of Procedure, as well as its request that the applicant and the intervener be ordered to bear their own costs in accordance with Article 136(4) of the Rules of Procedure are both devoid of purpose. The case should therefore be removed from the Register and the applicant ordered to bear its own costs. On those grounds, THE PRESIDENT OF THE SEVENTH CHAMBER OF THE GENERAL COURT hereby orders: 1. Case T ‑ 111/24 is removed from the Register of the General Court. 2. Whitehorse Liquidity Partners, Inc. shall bear its own costs. Luxembourg, 16 May 2024. V. Di Bucci K. Kowalik-Bańczyk Registrar President * 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: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2024/T11124_CO.html