Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 264/36 EN Official Journal of the European Union 1.11.2003

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the Council Regulation (EC) 960/2003 of 2 June,
insofar as it applies to the Applicant; and

—
order the Council to pay the legal costs and expenses of
the procedure.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The applicant in the present case is a company formed under
the laws of India manufacturing recordable compact disks
(CD-Rs), rewritable compacts disks (CD-RWs) and read only
memory compact disks (CD-ROMs). In addition, it manufactures other forms of storage media, and notably microdiskettes, in an export processing zone (EPZ).

Following a complaint lodged by the Community producers
of CD-Rs, grouped in Association CECMA, pursuant to which
the Commission announced the initiation of parallel antidumping and anti-subsidy proceedings against imports into
the European Community of CD-Rs originating in India. The
anti-dumping proceedings having been terminated without the
adoption of measures, the present procedure concerns only
the countervailing proceedings against CD-Rs that culminated
in the contested Regulation, imposing countervailing duties of
7,3 % on imports of recordable compact disks originating in
India. ( [1] ).

In support of its application the applicant submits that:

—
In determining 4,2 years as the period over which the
alleged subsidy should be allocated, the Council made a
manifest error of assessment in the determination of
the normal depreciation of the applicant’s plant and
machinery, and infringed Articles 5, 7(3) and 11(1) of the
Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation and Article 253 EC.

—
The contested Regulation should be invalid because
during the administrative procedure, an incomprehensible explanation of the calculation of the 4.2 years was
provided to the applicant in violation of the rights of
defence, or, alternatively, in violation of Article 253.

—
In analysing the consequent impact of imports from India
into the Community industry and also the question as to
whether such imports were causing injury to this industry
the Council failed to carry out an objective examination
of all the relevant evidence as required by Articles 8(2)
and (6) of the Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation and/or
committed a series of manifests errors of assessment.

—
In determining the injury caused by another known
injurious factor, namely imports from Taiwan were
not attributed to the subsidised imports, the Council
committed a manifest error of assessment in the application of Articles 8(6) and (7) of the Basic Anti-Cubsidy
Regulation.

—
In determining that injury caused by another known
injurious factor, namely the alleged anti-competitive
discrimantory pricing by the Community supplier of
technology, was not attributed to the subsidied imports,
the Council did not follow the correct procedures for the
application of Articles 8(6) and (7) of the Basic antiSubsidy Regulation.

( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 960/2003 of 2 June 2003 imposing
a definitive countervailing duty on imports of recordable compact
disks originating in India (OJ L 138 of 5.6.2003, p. 1).

**Action brought on 4 September 2003 by PTV Planung**
**Transport Verkehr AG against the Office for Harmonis-**
**ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)**
**(OHIM)**

**(Case T-302/03)**

(2003/C 264/64)

_(Language of the case: German)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
4 September 2003 by PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG,
Karlsruhe (Germany), represented by F. Nielsen, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the decision of 1 July 2003 of the Second Board of
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Case R 1046/2001-2);

—
order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

1.11.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 264/37

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Community trade mark The word mark ‘map&guide’ —
sought: application No 2089829

Goods or services: Goods and services in Classes 9,
41 and 42 (computer software,
conducting training events for
computer software and computer
programming)

Decision contested Refusalby the examiner to register
before the Board of the mark in respect of ‘computer
Appeal: software’ and‘computer programming’

Decision of the Board of Dismissal of the appeal
Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94

**Action brought on 8 September 2003 by Bayer AG**
**against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
**Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)**

**(Case T-304/03)**

(2003/C 264/65)

_(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)_
_of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was_
_submitted: German)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
8 September 2003 by Bayer AG, Leverkusen (Germany),
represented by M. Wolpert, lawyer. Sanofi-Synthelabo (Société
Anonyme), Paris, was also a party to the proceedings before
the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
amend the decision of 4 June 2003 of the Fourth Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Case R 452/2002-4) and reject the opposition;

—
order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for Com- The applicant in this casey
munity trade mark:

Community trade mark The word mark ‘NEXAVAR’ for
sought: goods in Class 5 (pharmaceutical
and veterinary preparations, diagnostic preparations for medicinal

—
purposes) Application
No 1534213

Proprietor of mark or Sanofi-Synthelabo (Société
sign cited in the oppo- Anonyme)
sition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in The national word mark ‘BESAopposition: VAR’ for goods in Class 5 (pharmaceutical preparations)

Decision of the Oppo- Rejection of the opposition
sition Division:

Decision of the Board of Annulment of the decision of the
Appeal: Opposition Division and refusal
of the application

Pleas in law: There is no similarity between
the marks which could lead to
confusion

**Action brought on 4 September 2003 by WHG Westdeut-**
**sche Handelsgesellschaft mbH against the Office for**
**Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and**
**Designs) (OHIM)**

**(Case T-307/03)**

(2003/C 264/66)

_(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)_
_of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was_
_submitted: German)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
4 September 2003 by WHG Westdeutsche Handelsgesellschaft
mbH, represented by U. Schuster, lawyer. Kaufring AG,
Düsseldorf (Germany) was also a party to the proceedings
before the Board of Appeal.