Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2004 in Case T-269/04 IDOM SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Withdrawal of application for registration — No need to adjudicate)
Date: 2005-03-19
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), consultancy, service industry, software, trade-mark law

C 69/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.3.2005

1 The appeal is dismissed.

2 The appellant is ordered to bear the costs.

March 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 EC (Case
COMP/C-3/37.792 Microsoft) — the President of the Court of
First Instance has made an order on 22 December 2004, the
operative part of which is as follows:

(1) OJ C 264 of 1.11.2003

1. The request

for confidential

treatment submitted by Microsoft

Corporation is granted at the interim measures stage.

2. Audiobanner.com,

is granted leave to
trading as VideoBanner,
intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Commis-
sion in the interim measures proceedings.

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE

3. The Computer & Communications Industry Association is removed
from the case as intervener in support of the form of order sought
by the Commission in the interim measures proceedings.

of 22 December 2004

4. Novell Inc. is removed from the case as intervener in support of
the form of order sought by the Commission in the interim
measures proceedings.

in Case T-201/04 R Microsoft Corporation v Commission
of the European Communities

5. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

(Proceedings for interim relief — Article 82 EC)

6. Costs are reserved.

(2005/C 69/31)

(Language of the case: English)

lawyer, and I.S. Forrester QC,

In Case T-201/04 R: Microsoft Corporation, established in
Redmond, Washington (United States), represented by J.-F.
supported by The
Bellis,
Computing Technology Industry Association, Inc., estab-
lished in Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois (United States), represented
by G. van Gerven and T. Franchoo, lawyers, and B. Kilpatrick,
Solicitor, Association for Competitive Technology,
Inc.,
established in Washington, DC (United States), represented by
L. Ruessmann and P. Hecker,
lawyers, TeamSystem SpA,
established in Pesaro (Italy) and Mamut ASA, established in
Oslo (Norway), both represented by G. Berrisch,
lawyer,
DMDsecure.com BV, established in Amsterdam (Netherlands),
MPS Broadband AB, established in Stockholm (Sweden), Pace
Micro Technology plc, established in Shipley, West Yorkshire
(United Kingdom), Quantel Ltd, established in Newbury, Berk-
shire (United Kingdom) and Tandberg Television Ltd, estab-
lished in Southampton, Hampshire (United Kingdom), all repre-
sented by J. Bourgeois, lawyer, Exor AB, established in Uppsala
(Sweden), represented by S. Martínez Lage, H. Brokelmann and
R. Allendesalazar Corcho, lawyers against Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: R. Wainwright, W. Mölls, F.
Castillo de la Torre and P. Hellström), supported by RealNet-
works, Inc., established in Seattle, Washington (United States),
represented by A. Winckler, M. Dolmans and T. Graf, lawyers,
Software & Information Industry Association, established
in Washington, DC, represented by C.A. Simpson, Solicitor,
established in
Free Software Foundation Europe eV,
Hamburg (Germany), represented by C. Piana, lawyer — appli-
cation for suspension of the operation of Articles 4, 5(a) to (c)
and 6(a) of Commission Decision C(2004) 900 final of 24

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 13 December 2004

in Case T-269/04 IDOM SA v Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark — Withdrawal of application for
registration — No need to adjudicate)

(2005/C 69/32)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

In Case T-269/04,
IDOM SA, established in Bilbao, Spain,
lawyer, against the
represented by Tatiana Villate Consonni,
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: Ignacio de Medrano Caballero),
the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
the OHIM being IDOM Inc., established in New Jersey
of
(United States), represented by Fry Heath and Spence LLP,
lawyers; appeal against the decision of the Second Board of
Appeal of the OHIM of 27 April 2004 (Case R 153/2003-2),
concerning registration of the sign IDOM as a Community
Instance (Fifth Chamber),
trade mark,
composed of M. Vilaras, President, M.E. Martins Ribeiro and K.
Jürimäe,
Jung, made an order on 13
December 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

Judges; Registrar, H.

the Court of First

19.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/17

1. There is no further need to adjudicate on the appeal

2. Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 217 of 28.8.2004.

Action brought on 30 November 2004 by HEG Limited
and Graphite India Limited against the Council of the
European Union

(Case T-462/04)

(2005/C 69/34)

(Language of the case: English)

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE

of 10 November 2004

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 30 November 2004 by HEG Limited, New
Delhi, India and Graphite India Limited, Kolkata, India, repre-
sented by Dr K. Adamantopoulos, lawyer and J. Branton, Soli-
citor.

in Case T-303/04 R, European Dynamics SA v Commission
of the European Communities

The applicants claim that the Court should:

(Public service contracts — Community tender procedure —
Interim measures — Application for suspension of operation
— Urgency — None)

(2005/C 69/33)

(Language of the case: English)

the European Communities

In Case T-303/04 R, European Dynamics SA, established in
lawyer, against
Athens (Greece), represented by S. Pappas,
(Agents:
Commission of
L. Parpala and E. Manhaeve, and J. Stuyck,
lawyer, with an
address for service in Luxembourg) — application for suspen-
sion of operation of, first, the Commission's decision of 4 June
2004 (DIGIT/R2/CTR/mas D(2004) 324)
to rank only in
second place the offer submitted by the consortium of which
the applicant is a member following a call for tenders for the
provision of informatics services and, second, the Commission's
decision of 14 July 2004 (DG DIGIT/R2/CTR/mas D(2004)
811) rejecting the applicant's complaints of 21 June, 1, 5 and 8
July 2004 against the award of the contract to another consor-
tium — the President of the Court of First Instance has made
an order on 10 November 2004, the operative part of which is
as follows:

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.

— declare, pursuant to Article 230 EC, that Council Regu-
lation Council Regulation (EC) No 1628/2004 (1) of 13
September 2004 imposing a definitive countervailing duty
and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on
imports of certain graphite electrode systems originating in
India is null and void;

— declare, pursuant to Article 230 EC, that Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 1629/2004 (2) of 13 September 2004
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting defi-
nitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain
graphite electrode systems originating in India is null and
void;

— order the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings be

borne by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following complaints introduced on behalf of Community
producers of graphite electrodes,
the Commission initiated
parallel anti-subsidy and anti-dumping proceedings against
imports of the product concerned from India. These proceed-
ings led to the adoption of the contested regulation.

The applicants are two Indian companies which manufacture
and export the product concerned to the European Union. In
support of their application they submit first of all that the
Commission services and finally the Council failed to investi-
gate other obvious sources of injury, namely dumped imports
from other third countries, even when presented with strong
evidence of them by Indian exporters. On this basis the appli-
cants invoke a violation of Article 9 paragraph 5 of Regulation
384/96 (3) and of Article 9 paragraph 2 of the Agreement on
the GATT (Anti-dumping
Implementation of Article VI of
agreement), a violation of the principle of non-discrimination
and of fundamental procedural requirements and a manifest
error of assessment.