CELEX: C2003/019/78
Language: en
Date: 2003-01-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-350/02: Action brought on 26 November 2002 by Ikegami Electronics (Europe) GmbH against the Council of the European Union

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                 Applicant for the Com-        INTER SERVICE S.r.l.
      Digital/Vía Digital to the competent authorities in the              munity trade mark:
      Kingdom of Spain pursuant to Article 9 of Council
      Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89;                                         The Community trade           SEPHORA (registration appli-
                                                                           mark concerned:               cation No 593.806 for goods in
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                             Classes 9, 18 and 25
                                                                           Proprietor of the right to    The applicant
                                                                           the trade mark or sign
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            asserted by way of oppo-
                                                                           sition in the opposition
                                                                           proceedings:
The pleas in law and main arguments are essentially those
previously put forward in Case T-346/02 CABLEUROPA and                     Trade mark or sign            French word mark SEPHORA for
Others v Commission.                                                       asserted by way of oppo-      goods in Classes 35 and 42
                                                                           sition in the opposition
                                                                           proceedings:
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             Decision of the Oppo-         Opposition rejected
refer cases to the market affected by the operation in question,           sition Division:
it also failed to take into account a case which is closely linked
to the concentration operation and involving the same parties.             Decision of the Board of      Appeal rejected
In any event, the Commission is better placed than the national            Appeal:
authorities to analyse the abovementioned operation for,
among other reasons, the overriding questions of Community                 Grounds of claim:             Misapplication of Article 8(4) of
interest which the later raises.                                                                         Regulation No 40/94
Action brought on 22 November 2002 by the company
Sephora against Office for Harmonization in the Internal                   Action brought on 26 November 2002 by Ikegami Elec-
          Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)                          tronics (Europe) GmbH against the Council of the Euro-
                                                                                                      pean Union
                          (Case T-349/02)
                                                                                                   (Case T-350/02)
                          (2003/C 19/77)
                                                                                                    (2003/C 19/78)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                             (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                 An action against the Council of the European Union was
22 November 2002 by Sephora, whose registered office is in                 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Levallois-Perret (France), represented by Michel-Paul Escande,             Communities on 26 November 2002 by Ikegami Electronics
lawyer.                                                                    (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 the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
      Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trade
      marks and designs) of 9 September 2002 (Case R 425/                  —     annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1696/
      2000-2);                                                                   2002;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                —     order the Council to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 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.