Case T-254/06: Action brought on 15 September 2006 — Radio Regenbogen Hörfunk in Baden v OHIM (RadioCom)
Date: 2006-10-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), local media, trade-mark law

C 261/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.10.2006

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 73 of Council Regulation No
40/94 as neither of
the opportunity to
the parties has
comment on the results of the Internet research carried out by
the Board of Appeal.

Violation of Article 74 of the regulation as the Board of Appeal
took into account
facts that had not been introduced or
substantiated by the parties and did not take into account facts,
evidence and arguments, which had been duly introduced by
the applicant.

Action brought on 8 September 2006 — Niko Tube and
Nyzhniodniprovskyi Tube Rolling Plant v Council

(Case T-249/06)

(2006/C 261/53)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Nikopol Seamless Tubes Plant Closed Joint Stock
Company (Niko Tube)
(Nikopol, Ukraine) and Nyzhniodni-
provskyi Tube Rolling Plant Open Joint Stock Company
(Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine) (represented by: H.-G. Kamann and
P. Vander Schueren, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested regulation as far as it concerns the

applicants;

— order to Council to pay the costs.

— made a material injury determination in breach of Article 3
the Community

the Basic Regulation (2) given that

of
producers did not fully cooperate;

— acted in breach of Article 5(4) of the Basic Regulation by
not terminating the proceeding in light of the non-coopera-
tion by the Community industry;

— committed a manifest error of assessment under Article
2(10) of the Basic Regulation by deducting an assumed
commission from the export price of the sales company
Sepco;

— breached the principle of non-discrimination in considering
and ultimately rejecting an offer of undertaking by the
applicants; and

— breached the rights of defence of the applicants and Article
253 EC by not adequately stating reasons for its decision.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 of 27 June 2006 imposing
definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes
and tubes, of iron or steel originating in Croatia, Romania, Russia
and Ukraine, repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2320/97 and
(EC) No 348/2000, terminating the interim and expiry reviews of
the anti-dumping duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and
tubes of iron or non-alloy steel originating, inter alia, in Russia and
Romania and terminating the interim reviews of the anti-dumping
duties on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or
non-alloy steel originating, inter alia, in Russia and Romania and in
Croatia and Ukraine (OJ 2006 L 175, p. 4).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of
the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1) .

Action brought on 15 September 2006 — Radio Regen-
bogen Hörfunk in Baden v OHIM (RadioCom)

(Case T-254/06)

(2006/C 261/54)

Language of the case: German

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants, who are Ukrainian producers of seamless tubes
and pipes, seek the annulment of Council Regulation No
954/2006 (1)
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes originating in
among others Ukraine.

Parties

In support of their application, the applicants invoke that the
Council:

— determined the normal value on the basis of a manifest
error of assessment and contrary to the principle of non-
discrimination by taking into account products that were
not manufactured by the applicants;

Applicant: Radio Regenbogen Hörfunk in Baden GmbH & Co.
KG (Mannheim, Germany)
(represented by W.W. Göpfert,
lawyer)

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

28.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/29

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 7 July
2006, which was notified to the applicant on 17 July 2006;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— annul contested decision R1388/2005-4 and order the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to publish
Community trade mark application No 2 906 139 for the
purpose of its registration;

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘RadioCom’ for
services
in Classes 35, 38 and 41 — application no.
3 986 023.

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

is
Pleas in law: The mark for which registration is sought
capable of being registered and the grounds for refusal
in
Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No
40/94 (1) which the defendant put forward do not preclude
registration.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘HONEYCOMB’
for goods in Class 11 — Application No 2 906 139.

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1), because the sign applied for was assessed incor-
rectly both as a whole and in relation to its individual elements
and the assessment of the relevant public was made subject to
a clearly exaggerated perception of the public.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

Action brought on 18 September 2006 — Neoperl
Servisys v OHIM (HONEYCOMB)

(Case T-256/06)

(2006/C 261/55)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2006
— Borrekuil v Commission

(Case T-211/99) (1)

(2006/C 261/56)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

The President of the Second Chamber Extended Composition
has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

Applicant: Neoperl Servisys AG (Reinach, Switzerland) (repre-
sented by: H. Börjes-Pestalozza, lawyer)

(1) OJ C 6, 8.1.2000.

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