4.7.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 257/39
Details of the proceedings before EUIPO Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark EMBANK European Merchant Bank — European Union trade mark No 18 048 966 Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 February 2022 in Case R 1845/2020-5 Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: — alter the contested decision and uphold the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety; — order EUIPO and the intervener to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, including those incurred in the proceedings before EUIPO.
Pleas in law — Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 60(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. — Infringement of Article 95(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council in conjunction with Article 27(4) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/625.
Action brought on 13 May 2022 — CCCME and Others v Commission (Case T-263/22) (2022/C 257/51) Language of the case: English Parties Applicants: China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME) (Beijing, China) and 8 others (represented by: R. Antonini, E. Monard and B. Maniatis, lawyers) Defendant: European Commission Form of order sought The applicants claim that the Court should: — annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/191 of 16 February 2022 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (1), in so far as it relates to the CCCME, the individual companies, and the members concerned; and — order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments In support of the action, the applicant relies on nine pleas in law. 1.
First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation and the principle of good administration in its determination of the normal value. 2.
Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to ensure a fair comparison in its dumping determination in violation of Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.