DECISION

of the Second Board of Appeal

of 16 May 2017

In Case R 633/2016-2

Armogan S. à r.l.
25A, boulevard Royal L-2449 Luxembourg Luxembourg	Applicant / Appellant

represented by Arendt & Medernach, 41A, Avenue J. F. Kennedy, L2082 Luxembourg, Luxembourg

v

ARMAGGAN KÜLTÜR TURIZM TICARET VE SANAYI ANONIM SIRKETI
Valikonaği Cad. Süleyman Nazif Sokak:38,   Nişantaşi Şişli, Istanbul, Turkey	Opponent / Respondent

represented by Curell Suñol S.L.P., Via Augusta 21, 08006 Barcelona, Spain

APPEAL relating to Opposition Proceedings No B 2 458 720 (European Union trade mark application No 13 199 799)

THE SECOND BOARD OF APPEAL

composed of H. Salmi as a single Member having regard to Article 135(2) and (5) EUTMR, Article 1(c)(2) BoA-RP and Article 10 of the Decision of the Presidium on the organisation of the Boards of Appeal as currently in force, and to the Second Board’s Resolution No 2014-1 of 3 June 2014 on decisions by a single Member

Registrar: H. Dijkema

gives the following

---

Decision

Summary of the facts

1. By an application filed on 26 August 2014, Armogan S. à r.l. (hereinafter ‘the applicant’) sought to register the mark

ARMOGAN

for goods in Classes 14, 18 and 25.

2. The application was published on 13 October 2014.
3. On 12 January 2015, ARMAGGAN KÜLTÜR TURIZM TICARET VE SANAYI ANONIM SIRKETI (hereinafter ‘the opponent’) filed an opposition against the registration of the published trade mark application in its entirety.
4. The grounds of opposition were those laid down in Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR.
5. The opposition is based on international trade mark registration No 1 004 246 designating the European Union

filed and registered on 23 October 2008 for goods in Classes 14, 18 and 25.

6. By decision of 8 February 2016 (hereinafter ‘the contested decision’), the Opposition Division upheld the opposition for all contested goods.
7. Within the set time-limits the applicant filed a notice of appeal against the contested decision as well as the appeal’s statement of grounds.
8. On 5 May 2017, the parties informed the Office that they had reached a global agreement including the withdrawal of the opposition at hand. Furthermore, the parties informed the Office that they had reached an agreement on the costs and that no decision on costs should be issued.

Reasons

9. Article 58 EUTMR provides that an appeal before the Board has suspensive effect.  It follows that an opposition may be withdrawn at any moment before the decision on the appeal becomes final. The Board hereby takes note of the withdrawal of the opposition and that, as a consequence, the appeal proceedings are terminated.
10. With the withdrawal of the opposition and, therefore, of the subject-matter of the opposition proceedings, the contested decision cannot take effect.  

Costs

11. As to the costs of the proceedings, the parties informed the Office that they had reached an agreement and that no decision on costs was necessary.

---

Order

On those grounds,

THE BOARD

hereby:

1. Takes note of the withdrawal of the opposition;
2. Takes note of the agreement on costs;
3. Declares the appeal and opposition proceedings closed;
4. Declares that the contested decision does not take effect.

Signed H. Salmi

Registrar: Signed H.Dijkema