Case T-85/07: Action brought on 20 March 2007 — Gabel Industria Tessile v OHIM — Creaciones Garel (GABEL)
Date: 2007-05-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), clothing industry, trade-mark law

C 117/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.5.2007

Action brought on 13 March 2007 — Mineral and Chemical
Company ‘EuroChem’ v Council

Action brought on 20 March 2007 — Gabel Industria
Tessile v OHIM — Creaciones Garel (GABEL)

(Case T-84/07)

(2007/C 117/40)

Language of the case: English

(Case T-85/07)

(2007/C 117/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Open Joint Stock Company Mineral and Chemical
Company
(represented by:
(Moscow, Russia)
P. Vander Schueren and B. Evtimov, lawyers)

‘EuroChem’

Parties

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested regulation, and in particular Article 1
thereof, insofar as it concerns the applicant and its related
companies specified in recital 14(a) and (b) of the contested
regulation; and

Applicant: Gabel Industria Tessile S.p.A. (Rovellasca, Italy) (repre-
sented by: A. Petruzzelli, Avvocato)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Creaciones Garel S.A.

— order the defendant to pay the costs of and occasioned by

these proceedings.

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant, who is a Russian producer and exporter of solu-
tions of urea and ammonium nitrate, seeks the annulment of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1911/2006 of 19 December 2006
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of solutions
of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Algeria, Belarus,
Russia and Ukraine following an expiry review pursuant
to
Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (1).

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
Community institutions established the normal value for the
applicant wrongly and made a wrong comparison with the
export price and hence made an erroneous finding of dumping.
The Community institutions thereby committed a series of
manifest errors of assessment and violated fundamental princi-
ples of Community law.

Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Community institu-
tions violated Article 11(1) and (3) of the Basic Regulation (2)
by failing to carry out an interim review in conjunction with the
expiry review under Article 11(2) of the Basic Regulation and
by adopting the contested regulation extending the duties at
their original level, whilst having had the duty and the possibi-
lity to initiate an interim review either ex-officio or pursuant to
sufficient evidence provided by the applicant.

— annul, in part, the decision of the Second Board of Appeal
of 25 January 2007, notified on 29 January 2007, in so far
as it refused registration of
the Community trade mark
applied for — Gabel — under No 3754777 in class 24,
since it does not comply with Article 8(1)(b) of Regu-
lation 40/94;

— uphold the decision of

the Second Board of Appeal
proceed with registration of the mark for ‘bath-robes’
class 25;

to
in

— order OHIM to register GABEL as Community trade mark
No 3754777 in class 24, for the relevant goods specified in
that class, as well as for ‘bath-robes’ in class 25;

— order OHIM to pay all the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘GABEL’ (application
for registration No 3754777) for goods in classes 24 and 25.

(1) OJ 2006 L 365, p. 26.
(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).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Creaciones Garel S.A.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark
‘GAREL’ for goods in classes 24, 25 and 26.

26.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/27

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed in part, to the
extent
the trade mark is allowed for
that
‘bath-robes’ (class 25).

registration of

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 (1), as the evidence submitted by the applicant
was not regarded as sufficient proof of genuine use and infringe-
ment of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 as there is a
likelihood of confusion between the marks in opposition.

(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 21 March 2007 — Deichmann-Schuhe v
OHIM — Design for Woman (DEITECH)

(Case T-86/07)

(2007/C 117/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Action brought on 22 March 2007 — Scil Proteins v OHIM
— Indena (affilene)

(Case T-87/07)

(2007/C 117/43)

Applicant: Heinrich Deichmann-Schuhe GmbH & Co. KG (Essen,
Germany) (represented by: O. Rauscher, lawyer)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

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

Parties

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Design for Woman SA

Applicant: Scil Proteins GmbH (Halle, Germany) (represented by:
V. Dalichau, lawyer)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade
Marks and Designs) of 22 January 2007 (case number
R 791/2006-2);

— reject Community trade mark application No 3 378 643 as
regards all goods in Class 25 (Clothing, footwear, headgear);

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Design for Woman SA

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

Other party
Indena SpA (Milan, Italy)

to the proceedings before

the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

— The decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the defen-
dant dated 23 January 2006, and the decision-corrigendum
of
the Second Board of Appeal of 31 January 2007,
Case R 10/2006-2 be annulled as far as the opposition is
dismissed with respect to the goods ‘extracts of medical
plants for use in the … cosmetic and food industries, not
for diagnostic purposes’;

— the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘DEITECH’
for goods in Classes 18 and 25 (Application No 3 378 643)

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The German figurative mark
‘DEI-tex’ for goods in Class 25 and the international figurative
mark ‘DEI-tex’ for goods in Class 25, the opposition having
been brought against registration in Class 25

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Indena SpA

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘affilene’ for
goods in class 1 — application No 2 751 931

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