Case T-462/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 December 2008 — HEG and Graphite India v Council (Common commercial policy — Anti-dumping duties — Countervailing duties — Imports of certain graphite electrode systems originating in India — Rights of the defence — Equal treatment — Determination of injury — Causal link)
Date: 2008-12-17
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, GATT, India, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, electrical equipment, price agreement

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/25

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

3. Orders the Association of European Airlines (AEA) to bear its own

(1) OJ C 44, 22.2.2003.

costs.

(1) OJ C 228, 11.9.2004.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 December
2008 — Ryanair v Commission

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 December
2008 — HEG and Graphite India v Council

(Case T-196/04) (1)

(Case T-462/04) (1)

(State aid — Agreements entered into by the Walloon Region
and the Brussels South Charleroi airport with the airline
Ryanair — Existence of an economic advantage — Applica-
tion of the private investor in a market economy test)

(Common commercial policy — Anti-dumping duties —
Countervailing duties — Imports of certain graphite electrode
systems originating in India — Rights of the defence —
Equal treatment — Determination of injury — Causal link)

(2009/C 32/45)

Language of the case: English

(2009/C 32/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented: initially by
D. Gleeson, A. Collins, SC, V. Power and D. McCann, Solicitors,
and subsequently by V. Power and D. McCann, J. Swift, QC,
J. Holmes, Barrister, and G. Berrisch, lawyer)

Applicants: HEG Ltd (New Delhi, India); and Graphite India Ltd
(Kolkata,
initially by K. Adamantopoulos,
lawyer, and J. Branton, Solicitor, and subsequently by J. Branton)

(represented:

India)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: N. Khan, acting as Agent)

Defendant: Council of
J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

the European Union (represented by:

Intervener in support of
Airlines
(AEA)
J. Heithecker, lawyers)

the defendant: Association of European
(represented by: S. Völcker, F. Louis and

Intervener
in support of
European Communities
K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

the defendant: Commission of
Scharf
(represented

by: T.

the
and

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of
the Commission Decision of
12 February 2004 concerning advantages granted by the
Walloon Region and Brussels South Charleroi Airport to the
airline Ryanair in connection with its establishment at Charleroi
(OJ 2004 L 137, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Application for
annulment of Council Regulation (EC)
No 1628/2004 of 13 September 2004 imposing a definitive
countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional
duty imposed on imports of certain graphite electrode systems
originating in India (OJ 2004 L 295, p. 4) and of Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 1629/2004 of 13 September 2004 imposing a
definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the
provisional duty imposed on imports of certain graphite elec-
trode systems originating in India (OJ 2004 L 295, p. 10).

Operative part of the judgment

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2004/393/EC of 12 February
2004 concerning advantages granted by the Walloon Region and
Brussels South Charleroi Airport to the airline Ryanair in connec-
tion with its establishment at Charleroi;

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of

2. Orders HEG Ltd and Graphite India Ltd to bear their own costs

Ryanair Ltd;

and to pay the costs of the Council;

C 32/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.2.2009

3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 69, 19.3.2005.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 December
2008 — Tomorrow Focus v OHIM — Information Builders
(Tomorrow Focus)

(Case T-90/06) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Appli-
cation for Community word mark Tomorrow Focus — Earlier
Community figurative mark FOCUS — Likelihood of confu-
sion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 December
2008 — JTEKT v OHIM (IFS)

(Case T-462/05) (1)

(Community trade mark — Application for a Community
word mark IFS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Not
descriptive — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2009/C 32/47)

Parties

(2009/C 32/48)

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: JTEKT Corp., formerly Toyoda Koki Kabushiki Kaisha
(Aichi-ken, Japan) (represented by: initially by J. Wachinger and
M. Zöbisch, and subsequently by M. De Zorti, M. Koch and
T. Grimm, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks
Folliard-
Monguiral, Agent)

(represented by: A.

and Designs)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal
of OHIM of 14 September 2005 (Case R 1157/2004-1)
concerning an application to register the word mark IFS as a
Community trade mark.

Applicant: Tomorrow Focus AG (Munich, Germany) (represented
initially by U. Gürtler, then by J. Berlinger)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by G. Schneider, then by
G. Schneider and S. Schäffner, agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM
intervening before the Court of First Instance: Information Builders
(Netherlands) BV (Amstelveen, Netherlands)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal
of OHIM of 17 January 2006 (Case R 116/2005-1) relating to
Builders
opposition
(Netherlands) BV and Tomorrow Focus AG.

Information

proceedings

between

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

Operative part of the judgment

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(OHIM) of 14 September 2005 (Case R 1157/2004-1);

The Court:

1. dismisses the action;

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by

JTEKT Corp.

2. orders Tomorrow Focus AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.

(1) OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.