Case T-116/06: Action brought on  13 April 2006  — Oakley v OHIM
Date: 2006-07-01
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), clothing industry, trade-mark law

1.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/17

5. Falstaff Verlags-Gesellschaft mbH shall bear

its own costs,
including those relating to the application for interim measures
before the Court of First Instance.

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 25
April 2006 — Componenta v Commission

(Case T-455/05 R)

(1) OJ C 289, 29.11.2003.

(Interim measures — Application for suspension of operation
— State aid — Urgency)

(2006/C 154/45)

Language of the case: Finnish

Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 March 2006 —
Mediocurso v Commission

Parties

(Case T-451/04) (1)

Applicant: Componenta Oyj (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by:
M. Savola, lawyer)

(Action for failure to act — Compliance with a judgment of
the Court of Justice — Adoption of implementing measures
during the proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

(2006/C 154/44)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: C. Giolito and M. Huttunen, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Finland (repre-
sented by: E. Bygglin, Agent)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Re:

Parties

Application for suspension of operation of Commission Deci-
sion C(2005) 3871 final of 20 October 2005 on State aid C 37/
2004 (ex NN 51/2004) granted by the Republic of Finland to
Componenta Ojy

Applicant: Mediocurso — Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular,
Lda (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: C. Botelho Moniz and E.
Maia Cadete, lawyers)

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: P. Andrade and A. Weimar, Agents)

2. The costs are reserved.

Re:

Action for failure to act seeking a declaration that the Commis-
sion unlawfully failed to adopt the measures needed to comply
with the judgment in Case C-462/98 P Mediocurso v Commission
[2000] ECR I-7183

Action brought on 13 April 2006 — Oakley v OHIM

(Case T-116/06)

(2006/C 154/46)

Operative part of the order

Language in which the application was lodged: English

1. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

Parties

2. The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred
by Mediocurso — Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, Lda.

(1) OJ C 19, 22.1.05.

Applicant: Oakley, Inc. (Foothill Ranch, USA) (represented by:
Michaela Huth-Dierig, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Venti-
cinque Ltd (Hailsham, United Kingdom)

C 154/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

1.7.2006

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— The decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) of January 17, 2006 in appeal R 682/2004-1 to
be annulled.

— The defendant to be ordered to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a
declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘O STORE’ for services
in class 35 — Community trade mark No 2 074 599

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade
mark: Venticinque Limited

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity:
The earlier national word mark ‘THE O STORE’ for goods and
services in classes 18 and 25

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partial declaration of inva-
lidity of the Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of both the applicant's
and Venticinque Ltd's appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation No 40/94 as the goods and services are absolutely
dissimilar and there is no likelihood of confusion between the
conflicting trade marks since the distinctive character of the
earlier mark ‘THE O STORE’ is very limited. Furthermore, proof
has not been provided that ‘THE O STORE’
is in any way
known or well established in the French market.

Action brought on 19 April 2006 — Usha Martin v
Council and Commission

(Case T-119/06)

(2006/C 154/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Usha Martin Ltd (Calcutta, India) (represented by: K.
Adamantopoulos, lawyer and J. Branton, Solicitor)

Defendants: Council of the European Union and Commission of
the European Communities

— A declaration, pursuant to Article 230 of the Treaty estab-
lishing the European Communities, that Commission Deci-
sion of 22 December 2005 amending Commission Decision
1999/572/EC accepting undertakings in connection with
the anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of steel
wire rope and cables originating,
in India,
published on 26 January 2006 in the Official Journal of the
European Union, OJ L 22, p. 54, 26.01.2006 (‘contested
decision’) is annulled insofar as it relates to the applicant
and withdraws a minimum price undertaking previously in
force.

inter alia,

— A declaration, pursuant to Article 230 of the Treaty estab-
lishing the European Communities, that Council Regulation
(EC) No 121/2006 of 23 January 2006 amending Regu-
lation (EC) No. 1858/2005 imposing a definitive anti-
dumping duty on imports of steel ropes and cables origin-
ating, inter alia, in India, published on 26 January 2006 in
the Official Journal of the European Union, OJ L 22, p. 1,
26.01.2006 is annulled insofar as it relates to the applicant
and gives effect to the contested decision withdrawing a
minimum price undertaking previously held by the appli-
cant.

— An order that the costs of and occasioned by these proceed-

ings be borne by the respondent.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is an exporting producer of steel wire ropes in
India exporting to the European Union.

The Commission had by decision of 13 August 1999 (1)
accepted certain minimum price undertakings offered by
among others the applicant in the framework of anti-dumping
proceedings concerning imports of steel wire ropes and cables
originating in e.g. India.

By Decision 2006/38 (2) the Commission withdrew the accep-
tance of the price undertaking offered by the applicant on the
grounds, according to the applicant, that it had failed to report
sales outside the scope of the price undertaking and claimed
Dubai origin on steel wire ropes and cables from Dubai when
in fact the origin should have been Indian due to insufficient
further working of Indian raw material in Dubai. By Council
Regulation No 121/2006 (3) a definitive anti-dumping duty was
imposed giving effect to the Commission's decision.

Concerning the failure to report sales outside the scope of the
minimum price undertaking, the applicant alleges it relates to a
human error and claims a violation of the principle of propor-
tionality as it is not a material breach of the price undertaking
and should therefore only result in instructions not to commit
such a breach in the future and not in a withdrawal of the
price undertaking. The applicant further submits that no mate-
rial harm was done to the Community industry.