Case T-314/06: Action brought on 17 November 2006 — Whirlpool Europe v Council
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, South Korea, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, electrical engineering, household electrical appliance, originating product

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/67

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and the main arguments raised by the applicant
are identical to those relied on in Case T-311/06, FMC Chemical
et Arysta Lifesciences v European Food Safety Authority.

The pleas in law and the main arguments raised by the applicant
are identical to those relied on in Case T-311/06, FMC Chemical
et Arysta Lifesciences v European Food Safety Authority.

Action brought on 18 November 2006— Otsuka Chemical
v EFSA

Action brought on 17 November 2006 — Whirlpool
Europe v Council

(Case T-313/06)

(2006/C 326/140)

Language of the case: English

(Case T-314/06)

(2006/C 326/141)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Otsuka Chemical Co, Ltd (Osaka, Japan) (represented
by: K. Van Maldegem, C. Mereu, lawyers)

Applicant: Whirlpool Europe Srl (Comerio, Italy) (represented by:
M. Bronckers and F. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— Declare the present application admissible and well founded;

— annul

the EFSA's Conclusion Report,

titled ‘Conclusion
regarding the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of
the active substance Benfuracarb’;

— order the EFSA and/or the European Commission by way of
incidental request in accordance with Articles 63 and 64 of
the Court's Rules of Procedure, to produce the proposal
regarding the (non) inclusion of Benfuracarb in Annex I to
Directive 91/414/EEC it intends to present to the Standing
Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health for a vote
at its 22/24 November 2006 meeting, or any other meeting;

— declare the illegality and inapplicability vis-à-vis the appli-
cants and the review of their Benfuracarb dossiers of Article
20 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002;

— order the defendant to compensate the applicants for the
damages incurred as a result of the contested measure, and
to hold at this stage by interlocutory statement that the
defendant is obliged to compensate the applicants for the
damages they incurred and to reserve the fixing of
the
amount of compensation either by agreement between the
parties or by the Court in the absence of such agreement;

— order the defendant to pay the costs and expenses in these

proceedings.

— Declare the definitive regulation annulled insofar as the defi-
the product concerned/like product does not
large-volume refrigerator-freezer units with at

nition of
include all
least two external doors placed side-by-side;

— order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who is a domestic appliance producer in Europe
of among others refrigerators, seeks the partial annulment of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1289/2006 of 25 August 2006
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting defini-
tively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain side-
by-side refrigerators originating in the Republic of Korea (1).

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
Community institutions violated Article 253 EC by providing
inadequate and insufficient reasoning on the exclusion of three-
door side-by-side refrigerators from the issue of product scope,
especially in light of the circumstances of the case.

The applicant further submits that the Community institutions
violated the applicant's right to be heard with regard to the last-
minute exclusion of three-door side-by-side refrigerators from
the scope of the product concerned.

C 326/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Moreover, the applicant alleges that the Community institutions
violated Article 15(2) of the Basic Regulation (2) by failing to
consult the Advisory Committee on time on the exclusion of
three-door side-by-side refrigerators from the scope of
the
product concerned.

Finally, the applicant claims that the Community institutions
violated the Basic Regulation in their approach to defining the
product scope on the basis of physical characteristics without
regard to consumer perception.

(1) OJ 2006 L 236, p. 11.
(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).

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word marks ‘CROS’,
Spanish word mark ‘SOCIEDAD ANONIMA CROS’, Spanish
figurative marks ‘CROS’ and Spanish word mark ‘ERCROS’ for
goods in Class 1.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

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

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1), since there is a likelihood of confusion between
the two opposing marks.

(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 17 November 2006 — Ercros v OHIM
— Degussa (TAI CROS)

(Case T-315/06)

(2006/C 326/142)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Action brought on 9 November 2006 — Commission v
Premium

(Case T-316/06)

(2006/C 326/143)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Ercros, SA (Barcelona, Spain)
Thierie, lawyer)

(represented by: R.

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Degussa AG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— ‘purely and simply’ alter the contested decision (decision of
the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 September 2006
in appeal proceedings R 29/2006-1);

— grant the opposition and reject the application for figurative

mark No 2 768 851 ‘TAICROS’;

— order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Degussa AG.

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘TAI CROS’
for goods in Class 1 (Application No 2 768 851).

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

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (Brussels,
Belgium) (represented by: E. Montaguti, Agent, assisted by J.-L.
Fagnart and F. Longfils, lawyers)

Defendant: Premium SA

Form of order sought

— declare the application to be admissible and well founded,

and, in consequence:

— order Premium SA to pay

amount of
EUR 88 594,493, representing EUR 57 605,74 in respect of
the contract ISAR A 2052 and EUR 30 988,74 in respect of
the contract KAVAS-2 A2019;

a principal

— order Premium SA to pay the default interest due on the
amount of EUR 57 605,74 for the ISAR contract (at the
rate specified in the provisions of French law applicable to
the contract);

— order Premium SA to pay the default interest due on the
principal amount of EUR 30 988,74 for
the KAVAS-2
contract (at the rate specified in the provisions of Danish
law applicable to the contract);

— order Premium SA to pay the costs.