Case T-458/07: Action brought on 17 December 2007 — Dominio de la Vega v OHIM — Ambrosio Velasco (DOMINIO DE LA VEGA)
Date: 2007-12-17
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), alcoholic beverage, trade-mark law

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/47

In support of its application, the applicant puts forward a plea
in law alleging an infringement of the rights of the defence inas-
much as the Commission, contrary to the principle of the right
to be heard, based the demand for reimbursement on time
sheets and conclusions drawn by OLAF of which the applicant
had no knowledge.

particular,
inform the applicant of the relative merits of the
successful tenderer. According to the applicant, EFSA mixed
selection criteria with award criteria when evaluating the bids
and used evaluation criteria that were not expressly included in
the call for tender. Furthermore, the applicant alleges that EFSA
committed manifest errors of assessment.

In the alternative, the applicant contests the Commission's appli-
cation of Article 26 of Annex II to the contract and its finding
that the facts of the case were sufficiently serious to invoke the
concept of serious financial irregularity justifying a full reimbur-
sement of the payments on account.

(1) Fifth European Community

covering
Research, Technological Development and Demonstration activities
1998-2002.

Framework Programme

Action brought on 17 December 2007 — Dominio de la
Vega v OHIM — Ambrosio Velasco (DOMINIO DE LA
VEGA)

(Case T-458/07)

(2008/C 51/88)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Action brought on 10 December 2007 — Evropaïki
Dynamiki v EFSA

Parties

(Case T-457/07)

(2008/C 51/87)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dominio de la Vega, S.L.
sented by: E. Caballero Oliver,
Martinéz, lawyer)

(Requena, Spain)
(repre-
lawyer and A. Sanz-Bernell y

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Ambrosio Velasco, S.A. (Dicastillo, Navarra, Spain)

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepi-
koinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece)
(represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Form of order sought

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

— Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of
3 October 2007 (Case R 1431/2006-2) and consequently
dismiss the opposition filed by Ambrosio Velasco, S.A.;

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of EFSA to evaluate the applicant's bid as
to the successful

not successful and award the contract
contractor;

— order EFSA to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and

expenses incurred in connection with this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submitted a bid in response to the defendant's call
for an open tender for the provision of IT consultancy assistance
(OJ 2007/S 97-118626). The applicant contests the defendant's
decision of 1 October 2007 to reject the applicant's bid and to
award the contract to another tenderer.

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Dominio de la Vega, S.L.

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘DOMINIO DE
LA VEGA’ for goods in Classes 33, 42 and 43 (Application
No 2.789.576).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Ambrosio Velasco, S.A.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative Community trade mark
‘PALACIO DE LA VEGA’ for goods in Class 33.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that EFSA
failed to state reasons in accordance with Article 253 EC and, in

Decision of
those goods,
rejection of the application for those goods.

the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for all
in Class 33, against which it was directed, and

C 51/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.2.2008

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

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion
between the signs in dispute.

(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 December 2007 — Hangzhou
Duralamp Electronics v Council

(Case T-459/07)

(2008/C 51/89)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics Co., Ltd (Hangzhou
City, China) (represented by: M. Gambardella and V. Villante,
lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 of
15 October 2007 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports
of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i)
originating in the People's Republic of China following an
expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports of the
same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic
of the Philippines published in OJ L 272/1 of 17 October
2007 in so far as it is applicable to the applicant;

— order the Council to pay the procedural costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

fluorescent

The applicant, a Chinese company, seeks the annulment of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 of 15 October 2007
imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated elec-
tronic compact
lamps (CFL-i) originating in the
People's Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant
to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and
extending to imports of the same product consigned from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
the Philippines (1)
and the Republic of
in so far as these
measures apply to the applicant.

In support of its application, the applicant contends that the
Council's view that all CFL-i were the same product no matter
their differences like lifetime, wattage, cover, other integrated
devices, length, diameter, diagonal or end user, is incorrect.

further alleges that

The applicant
the Council committed a
manifest error of assessment when calculating the dumping
margins, undercutting margins and injury thresholds. The meth-
odology by which data was extrapolated from Eurostat data
was, according to the applicant, not explained in the contested
regulation and the Council should have provided the parties to
the investigation with a non-confidential summary of the meth-
odology used and examples of calculations.

Moreover, the applicant submits that its right to be heard with
regard to the choice of the analogue country has been violated,
as the applicant was not given the possibility during the investi-
gation leading up to the adoption of the contested regulation to
comment on the substitution of Mexico by Korea as the
analogue country.

Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Council breached
Articles 7, 9 and 21 of the Basic Regulation (2) by imposing
anti-dumping duties when the Community interest did not call
for intervention.

Finally, the applicant submits that the Council breached Article
5(4) of the Basic Regulation and committed a manifest error of
assessment by imposing anti-dumping duties despite the fact
that the complaint initiating the investigation was not supported
by the Community industry since the part of Community
producers opposing the complaint represented more than 50 %
of the total Community production of the like product.

(1) OJ 2007 L 272, p. 1.
(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 18 December 2007 — Nokia v OHIM
— Medion (LIFE BLOG)

(Case T-460/07)

(2008/C 51/90)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Nokia Oyj
Tanhuanpää, lawyer)

(Helsinki, Finland)

(represented by:

J.