Case T-460/07: Action brought on 18 December 2007 — Nokia v OHIM — Medion (LIFE BLOG)
Date: 2007-12-18
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), audiovisual equipment, education, measuring equipment, telecommunications, trade-mark law

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.

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/49

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

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Medion
AG (Essen, Germany)

Form of order sought

— The decision of 2 October 2007 of the Second Board of
Appeal
in Case R 141/2007-2 should be set aside in its
entirety and the case should be remitted to the OHIM for
registration of the applicant's trade mark;

— the respondent should be ordered to pay the costs of the

applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The Community word mark
‘LIFE BLOG’ for goods and services in class 9, 38 and 41 —
application No 3 564 366

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Medion AG

Mark or sign cited: The national and international word marks
‘LIFE’ and ‘LIFETEC’, for goods and services in classes 1, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 16, 21, 28, 37, 38, 41 and 42; the national and interna-
tional word mark ‘LIFESAT’
for goods in Class 9 and the
national word mark ‘Lifesign’ for goods in Classes 9, 14 and 16

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the application for
registration partially

Decision of
dismissed the appeal

the Board of Appeal: Upheld the opposition and

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 40/94.

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision in its entirety; alternatively

— annul Article 2 of the decision in its entirety, or in the alter-
native, reduce the fine there stated, as appropriate; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of their application Visa Europe and Visa Interna-
tional Service Association (‘Visa’)
seek annulment under
Article 230 EC of Commission Decision C(2007) 4471 final,
dated 3 October 2007 relating to a proceeding under
Article 81 EC (Case COMP/D1/37860 — Morgan Stanley/Visa
International and Visa Europe) on one hand with regard to the
finding that Visa had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA,
by refusing to admit Morgan Stanley Bank International Limited
(‘Morgan Stanley’)
to
22 September 2006, due to the fact that it owned and operated
a competing card system and, on the other hand, with regard to
the imposition of a fine of EUR 10,2 million to the applicants.

to membership of Visa Europe prior

infringement.

In particular,

Visa raises three pleas in law in relation to the Commission's
the
finding of
Commission's conclusion that the non-admission of Morgan
Stanley to Visa membership constituted an appreciable restric-
tion to competition falling under Article 81(1) EC is vitiated by
manifest errors of law and claims that the Commission failed to
establish the necessary elements in support of that conclusion.

it submits that

Action brought on 19 December 2007 — Visa Europe and
Visa International Service Association v Commission

(Case T-461/07)

(2008/C 51/91)

Language of the case: English

Parties

(a) First, it is submitted that the Commission applied the wrong
legal and economic test for the application of the aforemen-
tioned provision, namely that there was ‘scope for further
competition’ and reached,
the wrong factual and
economic assessment regarding the alleged effects of the
non-admission of Morgan Stanley. In fact, according to Visa,
Morgan Stanley was not prevented from entering the rele-
vant market (‘the UK acquiring market’).

thus,

(b) Second,

it is claimed that the Commission infringed an
essential procedural requirement by changing its case on
restrictive effect at the stage of the decision without giving
Visa an opportunity to respond to the new formulation of
the case.

Applicants: Visa Europe Ltd (London, United Kingdom) and Visa
International Service Association (Wilmington, United States)
(represented by: S. Morris, QC, H. Davies, Barrister, A. Howard,
Barrister, V. Davies, Solicitor and H. Masters, Solicitor)

(c) Third, even if Morgan Stanley was prevented from entering
the UK acquiring market, it is argued that there were no
sufficient anti-competitive effects.