Case T-282/06: Action brought on 9 October 2006 – Sun Chemical Group and others v Commission
Date: 2006-11-18
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), chemical industry, economic concentration, investment company, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation

C 281/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.11.2006

— Article 4(3), Article 8 and Article 24(3) of, and Paragraph
2(a) of Annex III
to, Commission Regulation (EC) No
562/2000 of 15 March 2000 laying down detailed rules for
the application of Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 on the
common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ
2000 L 68 of 16.3.2000, p. 22).

21
brought
Rautaruukki v OHIM (RAUTARUUKKI)

September

on

2006 —

(Case T-269/06)

(2006/C 281/74)

Language of the case: English

Action

Parties

Applicant: Rautaruukki Oyj (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by:
P. Hagman, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

The applicant requests that the Court of First Instance:

— annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of July
21, 2006 and establishes that
the applied Community
Trademark application No 3 608 081 RAUTARUUKKI shall
be considered distinctive and registrable, and remits the
case to OHIM for registration purposes;

— orders the defendant OHIM to pay the applicant's costs in

these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘RAUTARUUKKI’
for goods
in among others class 6 — application No
3 608 081

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application for the goods
applied for in class 6

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(3) of Council Regulation
No 40/94 since the trade mark ‘RAUTARUUKKI’ has become
distinctive in respect of the goods applied for in class 6 after an
extensive long-term use of the mark.

Action brought on 9 October 2006– Sun Chemical Group
and others v Commission

(Case T-282/06)

(2006/C 281/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sun Chemical Group BV (Weesp, The Netherlands),
Siegwerk Druckfarben AG (Siegburg, Germany), Flint Group
Germany GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany)
(represented by: N.
Dodoo, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annulment of Commission Decision COMP/M.4071 —

Apollo/Akzo Nobel IAR of 29 May 2006;

— order the Commission to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The application at stake is made pursuant to Article 230 EC for
the annulment of Commission Decision COMP/M.4071—
Apollo/Akzo Nobel IAR of 29 May 2006, declaring a notified
concentration compatible with the common market.

the

The applicants claim that the Commission cleared the concen-
tration unconditionally, without affording it
careful,
detailed and consistent review that it warranted, considering
the serious competition concerns it allegedly raised. According
to the applicants, a review of the decision, an assessment of the
applicants' respective responses to the Commission's market
investigation, and an examination of the salient features of the
industry demonstrate that the Commission failed to consider
or, where it purports to do so, ignored evidence that was vital
for a complete and accurate assessment of the notified concen-
tration.

Moreover, the applicants submit that the Commission has not
merely ignored its own guidelines on the assessment of hori-
zontal mergers (1), but also the complaints expressed and the
evidence supplied by them. In fact, the Commission apparently
relied in several respects, solely on information provided by the
merging parties without verifying its accuracy, resulting in a
decision tainted with errors of law, fact and appreciation.

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/43

Considering the circumstances outlined above, the Commission
should have provided, as the applicants maintain, motivated
reasoning for clearing the notified operation. Having failed to
do so entails a violation of its duty to state reasons and thus of
Article 253 EC.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006
— Izar Construcciones Navales v Commission

(Case T-382/03) (1)

(2006/C 281/77)

Language of the case: Spanish

(1) OJ 2004 C 31, p. 5-18

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be
removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 21, 24.1.2004.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006
— Izar Construcciones Navales v Commission

(Case T-381/03) (1)

(2006/C 281/76)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be
removed from the register.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006
— Drazdansky v OHIM — Bad Heilbrunner Naturheil-
mittel (VITACAN)

(Case T-383/04) (1)

(2006/C 281/78)

Language of the case: German

(1) OJ C 21, 24.1.2004.

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be
removed from the register.

(1) OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.