Case T-46/06: Action brought on  13 February 2006  — Galileo Lebensmittel v Commission
Date: 2006-04-08
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European Union, Internet, Internet address, action for annulment (EU), intellectual property, regulation of telecommunications

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/39

— if the Court considers it to be necessary or appropriate,
annul Council Regulation (EC) No. 2603/2000, Council
Regulation (EC) No. 2604/2000 and Commission Decision
No. 2000/745/EC, in so far as they may purport to extend
to the applicant in the period after 1 December 2005; and

— if, but only if, and only to the extent that the Court may
find, contrary to the applicant's case, that they differ in
their true construction from the terms of Article 11.3 of
the World Trade Organisation (‘WTO’) Dumping Agree-
ment and/or Article 21.3 of the WTO Anti-Subsidies Agree-
ment, annul Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No.
384/96 (‘the basic anti-dumping regulation’) and Article
18(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2026/97 (‘the basic
anti-subsidy regulation’);

— order that the defendants meet the applicant's costs of these

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

and Thailand and terminating the

By the two contested decisions the Commission decided to
initiate an expiry review with regard to Council Regulation No.
2603/2000 of 27 November 2000 imposing a definitive coun-
tervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty
imposed on imports of certain PET originating in India,
Malaysia
anti-subsidy
proceeding concerning imports of certain PET originating in
Indonesia, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan (2) and Council
Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 of 27 November 2000
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting defini-
tively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain PET
originating in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea,
Taiwan and Thailand (3), as well as Commission Decision No.
2000/745/EC accepting undertakings offered in connection
with the above anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings (4).
By virtue of Articles 11(2) of the basic anti-dumping regulation
and 18(1) of the basic anti-subsidy regulation, the effect of
these notices of initiation, if given in time, would be that the
relevant measures remain in force pending the outcome of the
review.

expiry review was not initiated before the date of expiry, as
required by WTO rules. In this respect, the applicant considers
that the basic regulations must be interpreted in accordance
with WTO agreements and that, in any case, any ambiguity in
the basic regulations must be resolved in its favour, in accord-
ance with general principles of Community law. The applicant
further contends that if the basic regulations could not be inter-
preted in the manner it suggests, then those provisions would
themselves be contrary to WTO rules and therefore invalid to
this extent.

(1) OJ C 304, 1.12.2005 p. 4 and p. 9
(2) OJ L 301, 30.11.2000 p. 1
(3) OJ L 301, 30.11.2000 p. 21
(4) OJ L 301, 30.11.2000 p. 88

Action brought on 13 February 2006 — Galileo Lebens-
mittel v Commission

(Case T-46/06)

(2006/C 86/77)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Galileo Lebensmittel GmbH & Co. KG (Trierweiler,
Germany) (represented by: K. Bott, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

In support of its application the applicant submits that there
has been no valid initiation of an expiry review so that the
measures and undertaking at issue expired, in accordance with
their terms, on 1 December 2005. The applicant argues that
the notices were published on the same day as that on which
the measures expired (1 December) and that, therefore, an

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the defendant's decision to reserve the domain gali-
leo.eu and order the defendant to allow the registry issuing
eu. Top Level Domains (EURid)
freely the
domain Galileo.eu.

to register

C 86/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2006

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant applied for registration of the domain ‘galileo.eu’
as an eu. Top Level Domain. The Registry, EURid, refused that
registration on the ground that
the domain applied for is
reserved for the defendant.

In support of its application the applicant alleges infringement
of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 (1). In addition, it
claims that its rights under the second paragraph of Article 2,
the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) and the third sub-
paragraph of Article 12(2) of Regulation No 874/2004 have
been infringed.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying
down public policy rules concerning the implementation and func-
tions of the .eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing
registration.

order that the Office is jointly and severally liable with the
opponent for the applicant's/appellant's costs incurred in
connection with this appeal before the Court of First
Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Astex Tech-
nology’ for goods in class 5 (pharmaceuticals)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceed-
ings: Protec Health International Limited.

Mark or sign cited: Community word trade mark ‘Astex’ for
goods and services in classes 5 (insecticides for killing dust
mites) and 24 (textiles etc.)

Decision of the Opposition Division: Refuses registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismisses the appeal

Action brought on 17 February 2006 — Astex Therapeu-
tics v OHIM

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation
(EC) No. 40/94.

(Case T-48/06)

(2006/C 86/78)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Action brought on 17 February 2006 — Ireland v
Commission

Parties

Applicant: Astex Therareutics Limited (Cambridge, United
Kingdom) [represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister, and R.
Harrison, Solicitor]

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

Parties

(Case T-50/06)

(2006/C 86/79)

Language of the case: English

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Protec
Health International Limited (Cirencester, United Kingdom)

Applicant:
McGarry, Barrister]

Ireland [represented by: D. O'Hagan, agent, P.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal
of the OHIM, of 29 November 2005, in case R 651/2004
— 2 in its entirety or, alternatively, in part;

— order that the opponent pays to the applicant/appellant the
in connection
costs incurred by the applicant/appellant
with this appeal (if the opponent intervenes in this appeal)
and the appeal before the Board of Appeal and the opposi-
tion before the Opposition Division (in any event). Further,

Form of order sought

— Annul, in whole or in part, pursuant to Article 230 of the
Treaty, Commission Decision C[2005] 4436 Final of 7
December insofar as it relates to the exemption from excise
duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in
the Shannon region implemented by Ireland;

— order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-

ings.