Case T-350/02: Action brought on 26 November 2002 by Ikegami Electronics (Europe) GmbH against the Council of the European Union
Date: 2003-01-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, Japan, action for annulment (EU), anti-dumping duty, equal treatment, import, recording equipment, television

25.1.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 19/41

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

— annul the decision of the Commission of 14 August 2002
referring Case COMP/M.2845 - Sogecable/Canalsatélite
Digital/Vía Digital to the competent authorities in the
Kingdom of Spain pursuant
to Article 9 of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are essentially those
previously put forward in Case T-346/02 CABLEUROPA and
Others v Commission.

The applicants allege, in particular, breach of the principle of
good administration, inasmuch as the Commission not only
abandoned a practice and a consolidated policy in decisions to
refer cases to the market affected by the operation in question,
it also failed to take into account a case which is closely linked
to the concentration operation and involving the same parties.
In any event, the Commission is better placed than the national
authorities to analyse the abovementioned operation for,
among other reasons, the overriding questions of Community
interest which the later raises.

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

The Community trade
mark concerned:

Proprietor of the right to
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:

sign
Trade mark or
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:

INTER SERVICE S.r.l.

SEPHORA (registration
appli-
cation No 593.806 for goods in
Classes 9, 18 and 25

The applicant

French word mark SEPHORA for
goods in Classes 35 and 42

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Appeal rejected

Grounds of claim:

Misapplication of Article 8(4) of
Regulation No 40/94

Action brought on 22 November 2002 by the company
Sephora against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

Action brought on 26 November 2002 by Ikegami Elec-
tronics (Europe) GmbH against the Council of the Euro-
pean Union

(Case T-349/02)

(2003/C 19/77)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-350/02)

(2003/C 19/78)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
22 November 2002 by Sephora, whose registered office is in
Levallois-Perret (France), represented by Michel-Paul Escande,
lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trade
marks and designs) of 9 September 2002 (Case R 425/
2000-2);

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 26 November 2002 by Ikegami Electronics
(Europe) GmbH, Neuss, Germany, represented by Mr Laurent
Ruessmann, lawyer with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1696/

2002;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— order the Council to pay the costs.

C 19/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.1.2003

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is engaged in the sale and distribution of
professional camera models produced by its Japanese parent
company, Ikegami Tsushinki Co Ltd.

The applicant seeks annulment of Article 2 of Council
Regulation (EC) No 1696/2002 (1), amending the annex to
Council Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000 (2) imposing a defini-
television camera
tive anti-dumping duty on imports of
systems originating in Japan, to the extent that it limits the
application of the decision to imports of models from the date
of receipt by the Commission of the request for exemption,
namely 12 October 2001.

The applicant submits that professional camera models which
cannot be qualified as broadcast cameras were excluded from
the scope of the anti-dumping measures by the investigation
which found dumping and injury to the Community Industry
for broadcast cameras. Regulation 1696/2002 recognizes that
the models in question, listed in the annex, cannot be qualified
as broadcast cameras. According to the applicant however, the
regulation limits the temporal application of the exclusion
from the anti-dumping measure for those models and indicates
that anti-dumping duties are to be imposed on any imports of
those models prior to 12 October 2001. Therefore, the
applicant claims that the decision contained in article 2 of
Regulation No 1696/2002 constitutes a violation of Council
Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on protection against dumped
imports from countries not members of the European Com-
munity (3), as amended, and the WTO anti-dumping code (4),
according to which the imposition of anti-dumping duties is
only allowed on products included in the scope of an
investigation and injury caused by those products.

The applicant furthermore invokes the arbitrariness of the
contested decision and a manifest error of assessment. Accord-
ing to the applicant, the contested decision presumes that
imports prior to the date of the request must have been
professional cameras which could be qualified as broadcast
cameras, and therefore subject to anti-dumping duties. This
presumption is arbitrary since no basis is set forth for this
conclusion and the objective findings in Regulation 1696/
2002 in fact support the opposite conclusion. The applicant
also indicates that there is no serious risk of circumvention of
the anti-dumping duties if the decision were applicable regard-
less of the date of importation. Given that the regulation
confirms that the models are not broadcast cameras, there is
no reason why the importer would declare the models as
broadcast cameras which are subject to the anti-dumping
duties.

The applicant finally invokes a violation of the principle
of equal treatment. According to the applicant, an earlier
modification of the annex was applicable irrespective of
the date of importation without there being any objective
differences justifying this different treatment.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1696/2002 of 23 September 2002
amending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000 imposing
a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of television camera
systems originating in Japan (OJ L 259, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000 of 26 September 2000
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of television
camera systems originating in Japan (OJ L 244, p. 38).

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
protection against dumped imports from countries not members
of the European Community (OJ L 56, p. 1).

(4) Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (1986- 1994)
— Annex 1 — Annex 1A — Agreement on Implementation of
Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
(WTO-GATT 1994) (OJ L 336, p. 103).

Action brought on 25 November 2002 by Creative
Technology Limited against the Office for Harmonization
in the Internal Market

(Case T-352/02)

(2003/C 19/79)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 25 November 2002 by Creative
Technology Limited, Singapore, represented by Dr Michael
Edenborough, barrister, Mr Stephen Jones, solicitor, and Mr
Paul Rawlinson, solicitor.

A further party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
was Mr José Vila Ortiz, Valencia, Spain. The applicant claims
that the Court should:

— order that the Community trade park application No 673

327 proceed to registration;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division No 154/

2001;

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal No R

265/2001-4;

— order that the opponent pays to the applicant the costs
incurred bu the applicant in connection with this appeal
and the appeal before the Board of Appeal and the
opposition before the Opposition Division.