Case T-248/06: Action brought on 11 September 2006 — Professional Golfers' Association v OHIM — Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA)
Date: 2006-10-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), clothing industry, sport, trade-mark law

28.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/27

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in rela-
tion to the contested goods in class 24

Action brought on 11 September 2006 — Professional
Golfers' Association v OHIM — Ladies Professional Golf
Association (LPGA)

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: The conflicting trade marks have no similarities
from a visual, phonetic and conceptual point of view for
Spanish, French or English speaking consumers. The fact that
the earlier trade mark and the trade mark applied for cover the
same products does therefore not create a risk of confusion in
the mind of the public.

Appeal brought on 7 September 2006 by Carlos Sanchez
Ferriz against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal
delivered on 28 June 2006 in Case F-19/05 Sanchez Ferriz
v Commission

(Case T-247/06 P)

(2006/C 261/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Carlos Sanchez Ferriz (Brussels, Belgium) (represented
by F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-248/06)

(2006/C 261/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Professional Golfers' Association Limited (Sutton
Coldfield, United Kingdom)
(represented by: D. McFarland,
Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ladies
(Daytona Beach,
Professional Golf Association (Corporation)
USA)

Form of order sought

— Annul

the decision of

the Second Board of Appeal of
OHIM of 11 July 2006 in Case number R1087/2005-2 in
its entirety on the grounds that Articles 73 and 74 of
Council Regulation No 40/94 were breached; and

— order the case to be referred back to the Board of Appeal
and be reheard by a different panel of judges from those
who deliberated in the decision issued on 11 July 2006;

or, in the alternative, if the Court finds that Articles 73 and 74
of Council Regulation 40/94 were not breached:

— overturn the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
OHIM of 11 July 2006 in Case number R1087/2005-2 and
find in favour of The Professional Golfers' Association
Limited;

and

Form of order sought by the appellant

— order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the

defendant.

— set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28

June 2006 in Case F-19/05;

Pleas in law and main arguments

— give a ruling on costs, fees and disbursements and order the

Commission to pay them.

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Ladies Professional Golf
Association Corp.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In his appeal, the appellant claims that the Tribunal committed
procedural
irregularities when it considered the plea alleging
infringement of the principle of non-discrimination in that it
failed to examine the substance of the case of alleged discrimi-
nation in the application of the rule establishing a weighting of
the points in a career development report, as raised by the
appellant in his action.

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘LPGA’ for
goods and services in classes 25, 28 and 41 — application No
2 354 173

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
The applicant

Mark or sign cited: The Community word mark ‘PGA’ for goods
and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 37, 41 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition
in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

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)