Case T-240/08: Action brought on 16 June 2008 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM — Laboratorios Alcala Farma (oli)
Date: 2008-06-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), cosmetic product, trade-mark law

C 209/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.8.2008

More specifically, the applicants claim, on the basis of their first
plea, that the Community institutions erred in law and violated
Article 2(3) and (5) of the Basic Regulation, by disregarding a
major part of the applicants' costs of production as being unreli-
able and/or by de facto applying a non-market economy metho-
dology for establishing the major part of the applicants normal
value.

Furthermore, the applicants submit that once having decided to
proceed with the gas adjustment,
the Commission violated
Article 2(5), second sentence and/or made manifest error of
appreciation and showed a lack of reasoning, by implementing
the gas adjustment on the basis of the intra-Community price of
gas at Waidhaus Germany and failing to deduct
from the
amount of adjustment the 30 % Russian export duty on Russian
gas.

The applicants submit that had the dumping margin been deter-
mined correctly, in accordance with the Basic Regulation and
fundamental principles of Community law,
the Community
institutions would have found absence of or de minimis
dumping, and the anti-dumping measures could have been
repealed or significantly amended with respect to the applicants
and their related companies.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 236/2008 of 10 March 2008 termi-
nating the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regu-
lation (EC) No 384/96 of the anti-dumping duty on imports of
ammonium nitrate originating in Russia (OJ 2008 L 75, 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).

— Order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

relating to the policies and administration of

By the present action the applicant seeks the annulment of the
Commission's Decision of 16 April 2008 rejecting its tender
submitted in the framework of the tender procedure for the
conclusion of framework contracts for the translation of docu-
ments
the
European Union from all EU official languages into English (call
for tender No FL-GEN07-EN) (1). The reason given for not
retaining the applicant's tender was insufficient
technical or
professional capacity and lack of, or insufficient proven profes-
sional experience.

In support of its action the applicant puts forward a single plea
in law.
It claims that the administrative procedure has been
conducted irregularly and that its procedural rights have not
been observed. The applicant submits that it has successfully
provided translation into English within the Commission for
several years in the framework of contracts previously signed
and regularly renewed for which it has received satisfactory
rankings regarding the quality of the services. The applicant
claims that the evaluation committee's decision took no or no
proper account of the successful performance of the applicant
in submitting translation assignments to the Commission for
12 years neither it
took into consideration the documents
evidencing the technical and professional qualifications of the
applicant's staff, quality managers and sub-contractors.

(1) Contract notice published : OJ 2007/S 180 — 219517.

Action brought on 13 June 2008 — Comtec Translations v
Commission

(Case T-239/08)

(2008/C 209/107)

Language of the case: English

Action brought on 16 June 2008 — Procter & Gamble v
OHIM — Laboratorios Alcala Farma (oli)

(Case T-240/08)

(2008/C 209/108)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Comtec Translations Ltd (Leamington Spa, United
Kingdom) (represented by: L. R. Scott and E. Bentley, Solicitors)

Parties

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Applicant: The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, United
States) (represented by: N. Beckett and T. Scourfield, Solicitors)

Form of order sought

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

— Annul the decision letter and remit the applicant's bid for

reconsideration;

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Labora-
torios Alcala Farma SL (Alcala de Henares, Spain).

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/61

Form of order sought

Institutions de Soins Privées (Abisp) (Brussels, Belgium) (repre-
sented by: D. Waelbroeck and D. Slater, lawyers)

— Annul the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade
Marks and Designs) of 2 April 2008 in case R 1481/2007-2
and of the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisa-
tion in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of
17 July 2007 in opposition proceedings No B 893 216;

— allow the applicant's opposition to the registration as a
Community trade mark of the application dated 4 October
2004 for the figurative mark ‘oli’ for goods in classes 3
and 5;

— order OHIM to refuse registration of the said application

dated 4 October 2004: and

— order the other parties hereto to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘oli’
goods in classes 3 and 5 — application No 4 059 176

for

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

Mark or sign cited: The Community trade marks ‘OLAY’
goods in classes 3 and 5

for

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the confirmatory decision of the Commission;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek the annulment of the Commission's deci-
sion of 10 April 2008, which, in their opinion, confirms the
Commission's decision of 10 January 2008 rejecting their
complaint made on 7 September and 17 October 2005 against
the State aid granted by the Kingdom of Belgium to public
hospitals of the IRIS network in the Brussels-Capital Region and
refusing to initiate the formal investigation procedure in respect
of the aid in question pursuant to Article 88(2) EC.

The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicants
are identical to those submitted in Case T-128/08 CBI and Abisp
v Commission (1).

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in
its entirety

(1) OJ 2008 C 142, p. 30.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation
No 40/94 as the trade marks concerned are similar and the use
of the trade mark applied for is likely to cause confusion.

Action brought on 20 June 2008 — CBI and Abisp v
Commission

Action brought on 23 June 2008 — Ravensburger v OHIM
— Educa Borras (EDUCA Memory game)

(Case T-243/08)

(2008/C 209/110)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

(Case T-241/08)

(2008/C 209/109)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ravensburger AG (Ravensburg, Germany) (represented
by: G. Würtenberger, lawyer, and R. Kunze, lawyer and Solicitor)

Applicants: Coordination Bruxelloise d'Institutions sociales et de
santé (CBI) (Brussels, Belgium) and Association Bruxelloise des

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