Case T-192/04: Action brought on 28 May 2004 by Flex Equipos de Descanso, S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Date: 2004-08-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), furniture industry, metal furniture, textile industry

28.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/23

Action brought on 24 May 2004 by C. Van der Haegen
against the European Economic and Social Committee

(Case T-189/04)

(2004/C 217/42)

(Language of the case: French)

the European Economic

An action against
and Social
Committee was brought before the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities on 24 May 2004 by C. van der
Haegen, residing at Brussels, represented by S. Orlandi, A.
Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

March 2004 in Case R 333/2003-1 and alter it insofar that
it rejected the proof of evidence filed by the opponent and
insofar it rejected the opposition B-386088;

— remit

the case to the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market and order it to deny from registration the
Community trade mark application No 1607167 ‘LURA-
FLEX’ for all goods it seeks protection for;

— order

the defendant

to bear

the costs of

the current

proceedings.

— annul

the decision of

the Selection Board for internal
competition CESE/C/02/03 not to admit the applicant to
the competition tests;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The competition notice at issue required as an entry condition,
among others,
that each candidate should have five years'
working experience in the European institutions, of which at
four years should be with the Economic and Social
least
Committee and/or the Committee of the Regions. For the first
part of the competition, for which the applicant lodged his
candidature, the competition notice required, in addition, that
three years of the total experience should be in relation to the
type of functions covered by that part.

The applicant, who has acquired rich and varied working
experience in different European institutions, claims in support
of his action that the competition notice is illegal and infringes
Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and the principles of equality
of
treatment and of non-discrimination, since nothing can
justify the requirement of working experience acquired solely
with the Economic
the
Committee of the Regions, to the exclusion of the other Euro-
pean institutions.

and Social Committee

and/or

Action brought on 28 May 2004 by Flex Equipos de
Descanso, S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-192/04)

(2004/C 217/43)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28
May 2004 by Flex Equipos De Descanso, S.A., Madrid (Spain),
represented by R. Ocquet, lawyer.

Legget & Platt, Incorporated was also a party to the proceedings
before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 18

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

Legget & Platt, Inc.

Community trade mark
sought:

The word mark ‘LURA-FLEX’ for
goods in classes 6 and 20 (Spring
assemblies for incorporation into
furniture, beds, mattresses
and
seating;
furniture, beds, bedding,
mattresses,...) (No 1607167)

Proprietor of mark or
sign cited in the opposi-
tion proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

Lucia Antonio Betere
de

Equipos

now Flex

Fabricas
S.A.,
Descanso S.A.

for

the

The Spanish trade mark registra-
tions
figurative mark
‘FLEX’ for goods in class 6 and 20
(metallic
construction materials,
metallic bed frameworks; beds,
mixed mattresses with metallic
springs, furniture,...) as well as the
reputation of these signs in rela-
tion to all kind of beds, mattresses
and pillows.

Decision of the Opposi-
tion Division:

Rejection of the opposition

C 217/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.8.2004

Decision of
of Appeal:

the Board

Rejection of the appeal brought by
Flex Equipos de Descanso

Pleas in law:

Infringement of Rule 18(2) and
22(4) of Commission Regulation
No 2868/95 (1) and the oppo-
nent's right to be heard in accord-
ance with Rule 18 of the regu-
lation, as well as an infringement
of Article 8 of Council Regulation
No 40/94 (2).

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995
implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Com-
munity trade mark (OJ L 303, p. 1)

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1)

Action brought on 28 May 2004 by Gul Ahmed Textile
Mills Ltd against the Council of the European Union

(Case T-199/04)

(2004/C 217/44)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 28 May 2004 by Gul Ahmed Textil Mills Ltd,
represented by L. Ruessmann,
Landhi, Karachi
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

(Pakistan),

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 397/2004
of 2 March 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty
on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Paki-
stan (1) to the extent it imposes anti-dumping duties on the
product of the applicant,

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant submits that the complaint, on the basis of
which the investigation was opened, was manifestly insuffi-
cient both with regard to what it presents as facts and with
regard to its reasoning in support of the opening of an
investigation,

— a manifest error of assessment, a breach of Articles 2, para-
graphs 3 and 5, and Article 18, paragraph 4, of Regulation
(EC) No. 384/96, and a breach of the World Trade Organi-
sation Anti-dumping Agreement, with regard to the calcula-
tion of the normal value,

— a breach of Article 2, paragraph 10, of Regulation (EC) No.
384/96,
the World Trade Organisation Anti-dumping
Agreement and of the obligation to state adequate reasons
under Article 253 EC in connexion with the drawback
adjustment in the comparison of the normal value and
export price,

— a manifest error of assessment, a breach of Article 3 of
Regulation (EC) No. 384/96, and a breach of the World
Trade Organisation Anti-dumping Agreement, as regards
the determination of the existence of material injury as well
as the establishment of a causal link between the allegedly
dumped imports and the alleged injury.

(1) OJ L66 4/3/2004 p. 1
(2) OJ L 56 , 06.03.1996 p. 1

Action brought on 28 May 2004 by the Regione
Autonoma della Sardegna against the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case T-200/04)

(2004/C 217/45)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 May 2004 by the Regione
Autonoma della Sardegna, represented by Domenico Dodaro,
lawyer.

The applicant is a Pakistani company which produces bed linen
and exports it to the European Union. Its products are subject
to the anti-dumping duty imposed by the contested regulation.
In support of its application to annul that regulation, the appli-
cant invokes the following grounds:

— a breach of Article 5, paragraphs 7 and 9, of Regulation
(EC) No. 384/96 (2) and a breach of Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of
the World Trade Organisation Anti-dumping Agreement,
insofar as the initiation of the investigation is concerned.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare invalid that part of Commission Decision C(2004)
471of 16 March 2004 holding aid granted by Italy through
Article 5 of Law No 22 of the Region of Sardinia of 17
November 2000 to be incompatible with the common
market;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.