Case T-323/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 July 2006 — La Baronia de Turis v OHIM — Baron Philippe de Rothschild (LA BARONNIE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark LA BARONNIE — Previous national word mark BARONIA — Proof of use of earlier mark — Evidence produced for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Admissibility — Scope of the examination conducted by the Boards of Appeal — Articles 62 and 74 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
Date: 2006-09-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), alcoholic beverage, trade-mark law

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/35

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 July 2006 —
La Baronia de Turis v OHIM — Baron Philippe de Roths-
child (LA BARONNIE)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 —
Shandong Reipu Biochemicals v Council

(Case T-323/03) (1)

(Case T-413/03) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Appli-
cation for Community word mark LA BARONNIE —
Previous national word mark BARONIA — Proof of use of
earlier mark — Evidence produced for the first time before
the Board of Appeal — Admissibility — Scope of the exami-
nation conducted by the Boards of Appeal — Articles 62 and
74 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2006/C 224/75)

Language of the case: French

(Dumping — Imports of para-cresol originating in China —
Calculation of the constructed normal value — Taking into
account of by-products — Obligation of the Commission and
the Council to examine)

(2006/C 224/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: La Baronia de Turis, Cooperativa Valenciana (Turis,
Spain) (represented by: J. Carreño Moreno, lawyer)

Applicant: Shandong Reipu Biochemicals Co. Ltd (Shandong,
China) (represented by: O. Prost, V. Avgoustidi and E. Berthelot,
lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Petrequin and A.
Folliard-Monguiral, Agents)

Defendant: Council of
M. Bishop, Agent)

the European Union (represented by:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM
intervening before the Court of First Instance: Baron Philippe de
Rothschild SA (Pauillac, France) (represented by: K. Manhaeve,
lawyer)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities (represented by: T. Scharf and K. Talabér-
Ricz, Agents) and Degussa Knottingley Ltd (London, United
Kingdom) (represented by: F. Renard, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of
Appeal of OHIM of 9 July 2003 (R 57/2003-2) concerning the
opposition proceedings between Baronia de Turis, Cooperativa
Valenciana and Baron Philippe de Rothschild SA

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office
(Trade Marks and

for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Designs) of 9 July 2003 (Case R 57/2003-2);

2. Dismisses as inadmissible the application of the applicant, La
to

Baronia de Turis, Cooperativa Valenciana,
register the Community trade mark in question;

seeking refusal

Re:

Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1656/2003 of 11
September 2003 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and
collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports
of para-cresol originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ
2003 L 234, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Council Regulation (EC) No 1656/2003 of 11 September 2003
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively
the provisional duty imposed on imports of para-cresol originating
in the People's Republic of China is annulled in so far as it
concerns the applicant.

3. Dismisses the application of

the intervener, Baron Philipe de
Rothschild SA, that the opposition be declared inadmissible, in so
far as it is based on Article 8(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No
40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark;

4. Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

2. The Council is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by

the applicant.

3. The Commission and Degussa Knottingley Ltd are ordered to bear

their own costs.

(1) OJ C 275, 15.11.2003.

(1) OJ C 59, 6.3.2004.