Case T-383/03: Action brought on 14 November 2003 by Hynix Semiconductor Inc. against the Council of the European Union
Date: 2004-01-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, action for annulment (EU), electronic component, import

24.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 21/43

— initiated the formal

investigation procedure under
Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty with regard to three cases
of alleged aid consisting in an increase of capital of EUR
736 million, with an issue premium of EUR 586 million,
and of two subsequent injections of EUR 105 million and
EUR 50 million respectively by way of issue premia;

— rejects the arguments of the Kingdom of Spain, based on
Article 296 of the EC Treaty, thus ruling out the specific
procedures provided for by Article 198(1) and (2);

— questions, according to the applicant, whether certain aid
authorised in 1997 in the same sector, in relation to
which the abovementioned aid ought to be considered
additional aid, is compatible with Community law.

The pleas and main arguments are similar to those relied upon
in Case T-381/03 IZAR.

In particular, the applicant alleges infringement of Articles 88,
296 and 298 of the EC Treaty inasmuch as, since the Kingdom
of Spain had previously and expressly invoked the exception
provided for in Article 296(1)(b) of the Treaty, the Commission
had power to initiate not the procedure under Article 88(2)
but only certain of the specific procedures under Article 298.

Action brought on 14 November 2003 by Hynix Semicon-
ductor Inc. against the Council of the European Union

(Case T-383/03)

(2004/C 21/87)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 14 November 2003 by Hynix Semiconductor
Inc., Kyoungi-Do, Korea represented by Marco Bronckers, Yves
Van Gerven, Axel Gutermuth and Axel Desmedt lawyers with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Council Regulation
1480/2003 of 11 August 2003 imposing a definitive
countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional
duty imposed on imports of certain electronic microcircuits
known as DRAMs (dynamic random access memories) orig-
inating in the Republic of Korea (1).

With its first two pleas, the applicant contests the finding that
it failed to cooperate. According to the applicant, the defendant
disregarded the Arthur Andersen report determining the
applicant’s liquidation value and the affidavit submitted by
Citibank. The applicant invokes in that regard a violation of
Article 28 of Council Regulation 2026/97 (2), Articles 12 and
22 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures, the principle of proportionality and a manifest error
of assessment.

The applicant furthermore submits that the findings of the
defendant that several specific measures conferred a benefit on
infringe Article 2 of Regulation 2026/97,
the applicant
Article 1 of
the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures and amount to a manifest error of
assessment of the relevant facts.

The applicant also claims that the findings that the KDB
debenture programme (3) was specific to the applicant infringe
Article 3 of Regulation 2026/97, Articles 1.2 and 2 of the
WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
and amount to a manifest error of assessment of the relevant
facts.

the benefit of several specific measures,

The applicant continues by submitting that in calculating the
amount of
the
defendant infringed Articles 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation
2026/97, the Guidelines on the calculation of the amount of
the subsidy in countervailing duty proceedings, Articles 14, 22
and annex I(j) of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures. In this respect, the applicant also
claims that the defendant committed a manifest error of
assessment and infringed Article 253 EC.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the Definitive Regulation annulled in its entirety,
or at least partially, in so far as it concerns imports into
the European Community of products manufactured by
Hynix Semiconductor Inc.;

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

The applicant also contests the defendant’s findings that
subsidised imports from the Republic of Korea caused material
injury to the Community’s industry of DRAM producers.
According to the applicant, these findings infringe Articles 1,
8, 11 and 15 of Regulation 2026/97, Articles 15, 19 and 22
of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures and amount to manifest errors of assessment. The
applicant also claims that the defendant committed a violation
of Article 253 EC in this regard.

C 21/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.1.2004

that

the applicant

in calculating the
submits
Finally,
countervailing duty, the defendant infringed Articles 5 and 7
of Regulation 2026/97, the Guidelines on the calculation of
the amount of the subsidy in countervailing duty proceedings,
Articles 14 and 19 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures, and committed a manifest error of
assessment.

(1) OJ L 212 of 22 August 2003, p. 1.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on
protection against subsidized imports from countries not mem-
bers of the European Community (OJ L 288, p. 1).
(3) See recital 48 and following of the contested decision.

Action brought on 17 November 2003 by Reti Televisive
Italiane — RTI against the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-384/03)

(2004/C 21/88)

(Language of the case: Italian)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant
tration of
munity trade mark:

for
regis-
the Com-

Europortal Italia SpA, succeeded
by the applicant.

Community trade mark Word mark ‘Jumpy’ — regis-
tration application No 1.332.006,
sought:
registration sought in respect of a
number of goods in Classes 9 and
16.

Proprietor of mark or Microarea SpA.
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

Italian word mark ‘Jump’
goods in Classes 9 and 16.

for

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

Opposition upheld and appli-
cation rejected.

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law:

Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
of Regulation No 40/94 (‘likeli-
hood of confusion’).

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
17 November 2003 by Reti Televisive Italiane — RTI, rep-
resented by Giorgio Floridia and Raffaella Floridia, lawyers.

Microarea SpA was also a party to the proceedings before the
Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Action brought on 25 November 2003 by Proteome, Inc
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-387/03)

(2004/C 21/89)

— annul the decision of 11 September 2003 of the First

Board of Appeal; or

(Language of the case: English)

— in the alternative, interpret the decision of the Opposition
Division No 2637/2002 of 30 August 2002 on Oppo-
sition No B321994 to the effect that it does not preclude
the valid registration of
to
distinguish it from the similarly-named Internet portal;

the trade mark ‘Jumpy’

— make an order pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of
Procedure requiring the defendant, as the unsuccessful
party, to pay the costs.

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
25 November 2003 by Proteome, Inc., Beverley, Massachu-
setts, USA, represented by Dr Michael Edenborough, Barrister,
Mr Cerryg Jones, Ms Alexandra Brodie and Ms Carina Loweth
Solicitors.