CELEX: C2003/264/64
Language: en
Date: 2003-11-01 00:00:00
Title: Case T-302/03: Action brought on 4 September 2003 by PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

C 264/36               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             1.11.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               —     In determining the injury caused by another known
                                                                                injurious factor, namely imports from Taiwan were
                                                                                not attributed to the subsidised imports, the Council
—     annul the Council Regulation (EC) 960/2003 of 2 June,                     committed a manifest error of assessment in the appli-
      insofar as it applies to the Applicant; and                               cation of Articles 8(6) and (7) of the Basic Anti-Cubsidy
                                                                                Regulation.
—     order the Council to pay the legal costs and expenses of
      the procedure.                                                      —     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 anti-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Subsidy Regulation.
The applicant in the present case is a company formed under               (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 960/2003 of 2 June 2003 imposing
the laws of India manufacturing recordable compact disks                      a definitive countervailing duty on imports of recordable compact
(CD-Rs), rewritable compacts disks (CD-RWs) and read only                     disks originating in India (OJ L 138 of 5.6.2003, p. 1).
memory compact disks (CD-ROMs). In addition, it manufac-
tures other forms of storage media, and notably micro-
diskettes, 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 anti-
dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings against imports into
the European Community of CD-Rs originating in India. The                 Action brought on 4 September 2003 by PTV Planung
anti-dumping proceedings having been terminated without the               Transport Verkehr AG against the Office for Harmonis-
adoption of measures, the present procedure concerns only                 ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
the countervailing proceedings against CD-Rs that culminated                                              (OHIM)
in the contested Regulation, imposing countervailing duties of
7,3 % on imports of recordable compact disks originating in
India. (1).                                                                                          (Case T-302/03)
                                                                                                     (2003/C 264/64)
In support of its application the applicant submits that:
—     In determining 4,2 years as the period over which the                                   (Language of the case: German)
      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.                   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
—     The contested Regulation should be invalid because                  the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      during the administrative procedure, an incomprehen-                4 September 2003 by PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG,
      sible explanation of the calculation of the 4.2 years was           Karlsruhe (Germany), represented by F. Nielsen, lawyer.
      provided to the applicant in violation of the rights of
      defence, or, alternatively, in violation of Article 253.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     In analysing the consequent impact of imports from India
      into the Community industry and also the question as to             —     annul the decision of 1 July 2003 of the Second Board of
      whether such imports were causing injury to this industry                 Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      the Council failed to carry out an objective examination                  Market (Case R 1046/2001-2);
      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.               —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
 ---pagebreak--- 1.11.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 264/37
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Community trade mark          The word mark ‘map&guide’ —               Applicant for Com-            The applicant in this casey
sought:                       application No 2089829                    munity trade mark:
Goods or services:            Goods and services in Classes 9,          Community trade mark          The word mark ‘NEXAVAR’ for
                              41 and 42 (computer software,             sought:                       goods in Class 5 (pharmaceutical
                              conducting training events for                                          and veterinary preparations, diag-
                              computer software and computer                                          nostic preparations for medicinal
                              programming)                                                            purposes)      —       Application
                                                                                                      No 1534213
Decision         contested    Refusal by the examiner to register
before the Board of           the mark in respect of ‘computer          Proprietor of mark or         Sanofi-Synthelabo           (Société
Appeal:                       software’ and ‘computer program-          sign cited in the oppo-       Anonyme)
                              ming’                                     sition proceedings:
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal                   Mark or sign cited in         The national word mark ‘BESA-
Appeal:                                                                 opposition:                   VAR’ for goods in Class 5 (pharm-
                                                                                                      aceutical preparations)
Pleas in law:                 Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
                              Regulation (EC) No 40/94                  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
Action brought on 8 September 2003 by Bayer AG                                                        confusion
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                         (Case T-304/03)
                         (2003/C 264/65)
                                                                        Action brought on 4 September 2003 by WHG Westdeut-
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)       sche Handelsgesellschaft mbH against the Office for
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was       Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and
                        submitted: German)                                                      Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                                 (Case T-307/03)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                       (2003/C 264/66)
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
8 September 2003 by Bayer AG, Leverkusen (Germany),                     (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
represented by M. Wolpert, lawyer. Sanofi-Synthelabo (Société           of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
Anonyme), Paris, was also a party to the proceedings before                                     submitted: German)
the Board of Appeal.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                        Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
—     amend the decision of 4 June 2003 of the Fourth Board             the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal         4 September 2003 by WHG Westdeutsche Handelsgesellschaft
      Market (Case R 452/2002-4) and reject the opposition;             mbH, represented by U. Schuster, lawyer. Kaufring AG,
                                                                        Düsseldorf (Germany) was also a party to the proceedings
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.          before the Board of Appeal.