Case T-459/07: Action brought on 17 December 2007 — Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics v Council
Date: 2007-12-17
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: China, Council of the European Union, Pakistan, Philippines, Viet Nam, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, export, import, lighting equipment, originating product

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.