2025-01-15 - CD Paris - Bentley Motors v. Network System Technologies - UPC_CFI_171/2024
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_171/2024
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat
- Art:
- Decision
- Parteien:
- Bentley Motors Limited v. Network System Technologies LLC
Kernaussage: Headnoted decision of the Paris Central Division on what Rule 265.
2025-01-15 - CD Paris - Bentley Motors
v.
Network System Technologies - UPC_CFI_171/2024
notable
Headnoted decision of the Paris Central Division on what Rule 265.1 RoP requires from the opposing party. Express consent is not required: it is enough that the party was given an opportunity to comment on the withdrawal and raised no objection within the time limit the Court set [4]. The Court added that the time limit the judge-rapporteur fixes for those comments is not preclusive, so a consent expressed after it expired is still taken into account [5]. Permitting the withdrawal closes the proceedings and deprives every order made in them of effect [6]. On costs the Central Division took the opposite course to the Munich Local Division's contemporaneous practice: where no party applies for costs, the Court should not rule on them and no decision under Rule 265.2(c) RoP should be issued [7]. A parallel decision of the same panel on the same day disposes of Bentley's second revocation action, UPC_CFI_167/2024 against EP 1 875 683.