Case T-112/06: Action brought on  7 April 2006  — Inter-IKEA v OHIM
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law

C 131/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.6.2006

Action brought on 12 April 2006 — Vodafone España and
Vodafone Group v Commission

(Case T-109/06)

(2006/C 131/85)

Language of the case: English

Parties

ii) should have identified serious doubts as to whether the
CMT had applied the concept of significant market power
correctly according to the case law of the Court of Justice
and the Court of First Instance; and

iii) should have identified serious doubts as to whether the
CMT had collated and examined all relevant evidence.

Further, the applicants allege that the contested Decision leads
to unequal treatment of undertakings in comparable situations
and creates obstacles to the single market as the Decision is
inconsistent with other decisions taken under Article 7 of the
Framework Directive.

Applicants: Vodafone España, SA (Madrid, Spain) and Vodafone
Group plc (Newbury, United Kingdom)
J.
Flynn, QC, E. McKnight and K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, Soli-
citors)

(represented by:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Finally, the applicants submit that the Commission infringed
the applicants' procedural rights by not opening a second
phase investigation and by depriving the applicants of the
opportunity to comment, during the Commission's first phase
investigation, on additional information that the Commission
obtained from the CMT.

Form of order sought

— Order the annulment of the decision of the Commission
comprised in its letter dated 30 January 2006 addressed to
the Spanish CMT; and

— order the Commission to pay Vodafone's costs of

the

present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the
The applicants seek the annulment of a decision of
Commission of
the European Communities contained in a
letter dated 30 January 2006 to the Spanish Comisión del
Mercado de las Telecomunicaciones (‘CMT’), adopted pursuant
to Article 7 of the Directive 2002/21/EC on a common regula-
tory framework for electronic communications networks and
services (1) (‘Framework Directive’).

By the contested Decision the Commission endorsed, at the end
of the first phase investigation provided for in Article 7 of the
Framework Directive and without opening a further
two
month investigation pursuant to Article 7(4) (‘second phase’), a
proposed measure notified to the Commission by the CMT by
which the CMT had provisionally decided to:

i) find that Vodafone and two other undertakings (Telefonica
and Amena)
jointly enjoyed significant market power by
holding a position of collective dominance on the wholesale
market for access and call origination on public mobile tele-
phone networks in Spain; and

ii) impose an obligation on the three undertakings to respond
to reasonable requests for access to their networks and to
offer reasonable terms for the supply of access services.

The applicants submit that the contested Decision infringes
Article 7 of
the Framework Directive as the Commission
should have opened a second phase investigation because it

i) should have realised that the CMT could not, by reference
to the evidence and reasoning contained in the proposed
measure, justify a finding of joint significant market power;

(1) Directive 2002/21/EC of

the
Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for
electronic communications networks and services
(Framework
Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33).

the European Parliament and of

Action brought on 7 April 2006 — Inter-IKEA v OHIM

(Case T-112/06)

(2006/C 131/86)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Inter-IKEA Systems BV (Delft, Netherlands)
sented by: Jonas Gulliksson and Jens Olsson, lawyers)

(repre-

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:
Walter Waibel

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision, and

— order OHIM to pay the costs incurred both in these
proceedings and in the invalidity proceedings before OHIM.

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)