Case T-464/07: Action brought on 19 December 2007 — Korsch AG v OHIM (PharmaResearch)
Date: 2007-12-19
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/51

— finally, since the Commission failed to carry out a careful
and independent investigation, there was a defective adduc-
tion of evidence and a breach of the principle of the obliga-
tion to state reasons, embodied in Article 253 EC.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the
implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81
and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, p. 1).

Action brought on 12 December 2007 — Italy v
Commission

(Case T-463/07)

(2008/C 51/93)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Aiello, Avvocato
dello Stato)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul Commission Decision C(2007) 4477 of 3 October
2006, notified on 4 October 2007, in so far as it excludes
from Community financing and charges to the budget of the
Italian Republic the financial consequences to be applied in
connection with clearance of the expenditure financed by
the Guarantee Section of
the European Agricultural
Guidance and Guarantee Fund.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant challenges the lawfulness of
the contested decision, in so far as it excludes from Community
financing and charges to the budget of the Italian Republic the
financial consequences to be applied in connection with clear-
ance of the expenditure financed by the Guarantee Section of
the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.

the action,

The actual expenditure excluded from that financing, which is
the subject-matter of
for
the olive-oil
bovines, controls of the mills, the existence of
register and the geographical
information system for olives,
controls of the yield, checks of the destination of the oil and
dried fodder.

to premiums

relates

In support of its claims, the applicant pleads:

— infringement of Articles 15 and 24(1) of Commission Regu-
lation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying
down detailed rules for applying the integrated administra-
tion and control system for certain Community aid schemes
established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92;

— infringement of Articles 9a(1) and (3), 10, 16, 26 and 28(1)
of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2366/98 of 30 October
1998 laying down detailed rules for the application of the
system of production aid for olive oil for the 1998/99,
1999/2000 and 2000/01 marketing years;

— infringement of Article 11a of Regulation No 136/66/EEC
of the Council of 22 September 1966 on the establishment
of a common organisation of the market in oils and fats;

— infringement of Article 14(3) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2261/84 of 17 July 1984 laying down general rules on
the granting of aid for the production of olive oil and of aid
to olive oil producer organisations;

— infringement of Articles 2, 8, 13 and 14 of Commission
Regulation (EC) No 785/95 of 6 April 1995 laying down
detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC)
No 603/95 on the common organisation of the market in
dried fodder.

Action brought on 19 December 2007 — Korsch AG v
OHIM (PharmaResearch)

(Case T-464/07)

(2008/C 51/94)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Korsch AG (Berlin, Germany)
Grzam, lawyer)

(represented by J.

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

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) of 18 October 2007 in Case R 924/2007-4
concerning word mark No 5 309 836 ‘PharmaResearch’;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings

and of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

C 51/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.2.2008

Pleas in law and main arguments

nuation of the anti-dumping duties for one year instead of the
five-year period foreseen in the Basic Regulation (2).

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PharmaRe-
in Class 9 (Application
search’
No 5 309 836)

and services

for goods

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Art 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 (1), since there were no grounds for refusal of
registration.

(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 25 December 2007 — Osram v Council

(Case T-466/07)

(2008/C 51/95)

Language of the case: English

In support of its application, the applicant submits, first of all,
that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment by
holding that two entities of the Philips group are ‘Community
producers’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a) of the Basic
Regulation.

Secondly, the applicant submits that the Council committed a
manifest error of law by applying a Community interest test
even though such a test is not foreseen for an expiry review.

the applicant contends that

Thirdly,
the Council breached
Article 11(2) of the Basic Regulation and abused its powers by
limiting the duration of the anti-dumping duties to one year.

Finally, the applicant alleges that the Council based the Com-
munity interest test on manifestly erroneous factual findings,
made an erroneous assessment and failed to state reasons.

(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).

Parties

Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Du Pont de
Nemours (France) and Others v Commission

Applicant: Osram GmbH (Munich, Germany)
R. Bierwagen, lawyer)

(represented by:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 and order
that the contested regulation's effects be upheld until a fresh
review regulation comes into force.

Parties

(Case T-467/07)

(2008/C 51/96)

Language of the case: English

— Order

the defendant

to bear

the costs of

the present

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

light bulbs,

The applicant, who is a German producer of a broad range of
various types of
including integrated electronic
fluorescent lamps (CFL-i), seeks the annulment of Council Regu-
lation (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 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 and the Republic of
the Philippines (1), as this regulation only provides for the conti-

Applicants: Du Pont de Nemours (France) SAS (Puteaux, France),
Du Pont Portugal — Serviços,
sociedade unipessoal, Ld.a
(Lisbon, Portugal), Du Pont Ibérica SL (Barcelona, Spain), E.I. du
Pont de Nemours & Co (Wilmington, United States), Du Pont de
Nemours Italiana SRL (Milan,
Italy), Du Pont De Nemours
(Nederland) BV (Dordrecht, Netherlands), Du Pont de Nemours
(Deutschland) GmbH (Bad Homburg v.d. Höhe, Germany),
DuPont Poland sp.
(Warsaw, Poland), DuPont
International
Romania SRL (Bucharest, Rumania), DuPont
Operations SARL (Le Grand Saconnex, Switzerland), Du Pont de
Nemours International SA (Le Grand Saconnex, Switzerland),
DuPont Solutions (France) SAS (Puteaux, France), Du Pont Agro
Hellas AE (Halandri, Greece) (represented by: D. Waelbroeck and
I. Antypas, lawyers)

z o. o.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities