CELEX: C2003/019/79
Language: en
Date: 2003-01-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-352/02: Action brought on 25 November 2002 by Creative Technology Limited against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market

C 19/42               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         25.1.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         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.
The applicant is engaged in the sale and distribution of
professional camera models produced by its Japanese parent              (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 1696/2002 of 23 September 2002
company, Ikegami Tsushinki Co Ltd.                                           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).
The applicant seeks annulment of Article 2 of Council                   (3 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
Regulation (EC) No 1696/2002 ( 1), amending the annex to                     protection against dumped imports from countries not members
Council Regulation (EC) No 2042/2000 (2) imposing a defini-                  of the European Community (OJ L 56, p. 1).
tive anti-dumping duty on imports of television camera                  (4 ) Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (1986- 1994)
systems originating in Japan, to the extent that it limits the               — Annex 1 — Annex 1A — Agreement on Implementation of
application of the decision to imports of models from the date               Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
of receipt by the Commission of the request for exemption,                   (WTO-GATT 1994) (OJ L 336, p. 103).
namely 12 October 2001.
The applicant submits that professional camera models which
cannot be qualified as broadcast cameras were excluded from             Action brought on 25 November 2002 by Creative
the scope of the anti-dumping measures by the investigation             Technology Limited against the Office for Harmonization
which found dumping and injury to the Community Industry                                        in the Internal Market
for broadcast cameras. Regulation 1696/2002 recognizes that
the models in question, listed in the annex, cannot be qualified                                    (Case T-352/02)
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                                         (2003/C 19/79)
that anti-dumping duties are to be imposed on any imports of
those models prior to 12 October 2001. Therefore, the                                        (Language of the case: English)
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-                 An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
munity ( 3), as amended, and the WTO anti-dumping code ( 4),            Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
according to which the imposition of anti-dumping duties is             European Communities on 25 November 2002 by Creative
only allowed on products included in the scope of an                    Technology Limited, Singapore, represented by Dr Michael
investigation and injury caused by those products.                      Edenborough, barrister, Mr Stephen Jones, solicitor, and Mr
                                                                        Paul Rawlinson, solicitor.
                                                                        A further party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
The applicant furthermore invokes the arbitrariness of the              was Mr José Vila Ortiz, Valencia, Spain. The applicant claims
contested decision and a manifest error of assessment. Accord-          that the Court should:
ing to the applicant, the contested decision presumes that
imports prior to the date of the request must have been                 —      order that the Community trade park application No 673
professional cameras which could be qualified as broadcast                     327 proceed to registration;
cameras, and therefore subject to anti-dumping duties. This
presumption is arbitrary since no basis is set forth for this           —      annul the decision of the Opposition Division No 154/
conclusion and the objective findings in Regulation 1696/                      2001;
2002 in fact support the opposite conclusion. The applicant
also indicates that there is no serious risk of circumvention of        —      annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal No R
the anti-dumping duties if the decision were applicable regard-                265/2001-4;
less of the date of importation. Given that the regulation
confirms that the models are not broadcast cameras, there is            —      order that the opponent pays to the applicant the costs
no reason why the importer would declare the models as                         incurred bu the applicant in connection with this appeal
broadcast cameras which are subject to the anti-dumping                        and the appeal before the Board of Appeal and the
duties.                                                                        opposition before the Opposition Division.
 ---pagebreak--- 25.1.2003             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 19/43
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          European Communities on 3 December 2002 by Chum
                                                                         Limited, Toronto (Canada), represented by Michael Gilbert,
                                                                         Solicitor. A further party to the proceedings before the Board
Applicant for the Com-        Creative Technology Limited.
                                                                         of Appeal was Star TV AG, Schlieren (Switzerland).
munity trade mark:
The Community trade           the community trade mark appli-
mark concerned:               cation No 673327 for the word              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                              mark ‘PC WORKS’ for goods in
                              class 9 (apparatus for recording,
                                                                         —     set aside the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
                              transmitting and reproducing                     OHIM, dated 17th September, 2002 in Appeal No.
                              sound or images, loudspeakers, a.
                                                                               R1140/2000-2,
                              o.).
Proprietor of the right to    Mr José Vila Ortiz.                        —     order that the Community Trade Mark application No.
the trade mark or sign                                                         890145 be registered for the services in Class 38 and
asserted by way of oppo-                                                       Class 41,
sition in the opposition
proceedings:                                                             —     order that costs be awarded to the Applicant in this
                                                                               Appeal, in Appeal No. R1140/2000-2 and in Opposition
Trade mark or sign            the Spanish figurative mark ‘W                   No. 184525.
asserted by way of oppo-      WORK PRO’, registered under
sition in the opposition      No 1925320, in relation to goods
proceedings:                  in class 9 (sound electronical
                              equipments, loudspeakers, sound
                              reproducing apparatus, a. o.).             Pleas in law and main arguments
Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the Community trade
sition Division:              mark application.                          Applicant for the Com-        Chum Limited
                                                                         munity Trade-mark:
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal brought
Appeal:                       by Creative Technology Limited.
                                                                         The Community trade-          Word mark ‘STAR TV’ — appli-
Grounds of claim:             the applicant submits that undue           mark concerned:               cation No 890145, relating to
                              weight was given to the common                                           goods in classes 38 and 41.
                              element ‘Work’ in both marks
                              and insufficient consideration was         Proprietor of the right to    Star TV AG
                              given to the fact that the goods in        the trade mark or sign
                              question are only bought after             asserted by way of oppo-
                              careful examination of the fea-            sition in the opposition
                              tures of the goods, thus reducing          proceedings:
                              the likelihood of confusion
                              amongst the relevant public.               Trade-mark or sign            Figurative trade-mark composed
                                                                         asserted by way of oppo-      of the words ‘STAR TV’ superpos-
                                                                         sition in the opposition      ing a big black and white star,
                                                                         procedings:                   accompanied by 3 smaller stars
                                                                                                       and a small moon (international
                                                                                                       registration No 638769, covering
                                                                                                       Austria, Germany, the Benelux,
                                                                                                       France and Italy), relating to goods
Action brought on 3 December 2002 by Chum Limited
                                                                                                       in classes 38 and 41.
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                             Market
                                                                         Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the Community Tra-
                                                                         sition Division:              de-mark.
                        (Case T-359/02)
                                                                         Decision of the Board of      Refusal of the Appeal.
                         (2003/C 19/80)                                  Appeal:
                  (Language of the case: English)                        Grounds of the claim:         Incorrect application of Article
                                                                                                       8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                                                                                       94.
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the