Case T-113/06: Action brought on  10 April 2006  — Fjord Seafood Norway and Others v Council
Date: 2006-04-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, Norway, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, import, originating product, sea fish

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/47

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a
for
declaration of
goods and services in classes 16, 20 and 42 (Community Trade
Mark registration No 283 952)

the figurative Trade Mark ‘idea’

invalidity:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Walter Waibel

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community
trade mark: Inter IKEA Systems B.V.

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity:
several Community and national, figurative and word trade
marks for goods and services in classes 16, 20 and 42

Decision of the Cancellation Division:
mark ‘idea’

invalidity of the trade

Decision of the Board of Appeal: rejection of the request for inva-
lidity

Pleas in law:
Council Regulation No 40/94

infringement of Articles 52(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of

Action brought on 10 April 2006 — Fjord Seafood
Norway and Others v Council

(Case T-113/06)

(2006/C 131/87)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Fjord Seafood Norway AS (Oslo, Norway), Fjord
Seafood Scotland Farming Ltd (Isle of Lewis, United Kingdom),
Alsaker Fjordbruk AS (Onarheim, Norway) (represented by: J.
Juuhl-Langseth and P. Dyrberg, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul Council Regulation 85/2006 insofar as it relates to

Fjord Seafood Norway AS.

— Order the Council to bear the applicant's costs.

The applicants either export farmed salmon from Norway to
the Community or produce it in the Community. The contested
regulation imposes anti-dumping duties on farmed salmon
originating in Norway.

In support of their application, the applicants submit in the
first place that the contested regulation defines and applies the
notion of Community industry wrongly. The applicants state
that the contested regulation defined the Community industry
suffering injury in a way that it covered less than 5 % of total
Community production, in particular on the grounds that other
Community producers are owned by or related to Norwegian
interests. They submit that therefore the contested regulation
violated the EEA Agreement,
in particular the principle of
freedom of establishment, free movement of capital and non-
discrimination on grounds of nationality,
the basic regu-
lation (1), and Article 253.

The applicants furthermore contest that the contested regu-
lation defined the Community industry as such as to cover only
producers of farmed salmon. They submit that the processing
industry should also have been included in the definition in as
much as the salmon at issue is also processed and the duties
imposed take into account processing costs.

that

The applicants also submit
the contested regulation
wrongly assessed the dumping and injury based on data
relating to the 25 Member States of the EU although for most
of the time of the investigation period, the EU consisted of 15
Member States. Norwegian exporters market behaviour on the
markets of the ten new Member States, who have no farmed
salmon industry, prior to 1 May 2004 should not be construed
as dumping causing injury to the Community industry.

the

that

that

submit

furthermore

samples of
The applicants
complainants and Norwegian exporters used are not represen-
tative,
the contested regulation failed to establish the
causal link between Norwegian imports and injury and failed to
consider whether injury by US and Canadian imports was not
attributed to Norwegian imports. It is also submitted that the
contested regulation was wrong in automatically identifying
lost Community industry market share as injury,
the
exchange rates used for the calculation of duties were wrong,
that the basis for import prices on fillets is wrong and that the
disclosure in that
is
submitted that,
in relation to the applicant Fjord Seafood
Norway, the cost of production was wrongly established.

insufficient. Finally,

respect was

that

it

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of
the European Community (OJ L 56, p. 1)