Case T-418/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2007 — La Mer Technology v OHIM — Laboratoires Goëmar (LA MER) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark LA MER — Earlier national word mark LABORATOIRE DE LA MER — Relative ground of refusal — Genuine use of the mark — Article 43(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94))
Date: 2007-11-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), cosmetic product, trade-mark law

C 269/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.11.2007

Operative part of the judgment

Re:

1. Dismisses the action in Case T-125/03 as inadmissible;

2. Dismisses the action in Case T-253/03 as unfounded;

3. Orders Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd to
bear three fifths of their own costs relating to the main proceedings
and to the proceedings for interim relief, and to pay three fifths of
the costs incurred by the Commission relating to the main proceed-
ings and to the proceedings for interim relief;

4. Orders the Commission to bear two fifths of its own costs relating
to the main proceedings and to the proceedings for interim relief,
and to pay two fifths of
the costs incurred by Akzo Nobel
Chemicals and Akcros Chemicals relating to the main proceedings
and to the proceedings for interim relief;

5. Orders the interveners to bear their own costs relating to the main

proceedings and to the proceedings for interim relief.

of

for

annulment

Application
Commission Decision
C(2003) 1473 final of 9 July 2003 declaring the measures
which the German authorities propose to take to promote the
use of insulating materials produced from renewable raw mate-
rials
aid
No 694/2002).

compatible with the

common market

(State

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. orders Fachvereinigung Mineralfaserindustrie eV Deutsche Gruppe
der Eurima — European Insulation Manufacturers Association to
bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the Commission;

3. orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 146, 21.6.2003.

(1) OJ C 35, 7.2.2004.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 September
v
2007 — Fachvereinigung Mineralfaserindustrie

Commission

(Case T-375/03) (1)

(State aid — Measures to promote the use of insulating mate-
rials produced from renewable raw materials — Decision
declaring the aid compatible with the common market —
Preliminary investigation procedure — Action for annulment
— Admissibility — Notion of party concerned within the
meaning of Article 88(2) EC — Commission's duty to initiate
the inter partes procedure)

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September
2007 — La Mer Technology v OHIM — Laboratoires
Goëmar (LA MER)

(Case T-418/03) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Appli-
cation for Community word mark LA MER — Earlier national
word mark LABORATOIRE DE LA MER — Relative ground
of refusal — Genuine use of the mark — Article 43(1) and
(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — No likelihood of confu-
sion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94))

(2007/C 269/78)

Language of the case: German

(2007/C 269/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Fachvereinigung Mineralfaserindustrie eV Deutsche
Gruppe der Eurima — European Insulation Manufacturers Asso-
ciation (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)
(represented by: T.
Schmidt-Kötters, D. Uwer and K. Najork, lawyers)

Applicant: La Mer Technology, Inc. (New York, New York, United
States) (represented by: initially, V. von Bomhard, A. Renck and
A. Pohlmann, and subsequently, V. von Bomhard and A. Renck,
lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: V. Kreuschitz and M. Niejahr, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

in support of

the defendant: Federal Republic of
Intervener
Germany (represented by:
initially, W.-D. Plessing, M. Lumma
and C. Schulze-Bahr, and subsequently W.-D. Plessing and C.
Schulze-Bahr, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM,
intervener before the Court of First Instance: Laboratoires Goëmar
(Saint-Malo, France) (represented by: E. Baud and S. Strittmatter,
lawyers)

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/45

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of
Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2003 (Case R 814/2000-2)
relating
to opposition proceedings between Laboratoires
Goëmar and La Mer Technology, Inc.

Kingdom) (represented by: J. Bourgeois, lawyer); Association for
Competitive Technology, Inc. (Washington, DC, United States)
(represented by: L. Ruessmann and P. Hecker,
lawyers, and
Italy); Mamut
K. Bacon, Barrister); TeamSystem SpA (Pesaro,
ASA (Oslo, Norway) (represented by: G. Berrisch, lawyer); and
Exor AB (Uppsala, Sweden) (represented by: S. Martínez Lage,
H. Brokelmann and R. Allendesalazar Corcho, lawyers)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders La Mer Technology, Inc., to pay its own costs and those of
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) (OHIM) and Laboratoires Goëmar.

Interveners in support of the defendant: Software & Information
Industry Association (Washington, DC) (represented by: J. Flynn
QC, C. Simpson and T. Vinje, Solicitors, and D. Paemen,
N. Dodoo and M. Dolmans, lawyers); Free Software Foundation
(represented by: C. Piana,
Europe eV (Hamburg, Germany)
lawyer); Audiobanner.com (Los Angeles, California, United
States)
lawyer); and
European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS) (Brussels,
Belgium)
Paemen, N. Dodoo and
M. Dolmans, lawyers, and J. Flynn QC)

(represented by: L. Alvizar Ceballos,

(represented by: D.

(1) OJ C 47, 21.2.2004.

Re:

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Grand Chamber)
of 17 September 2007 — Microsoft v Commission

(Case T-201/04) (1)

(Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Client PC
operating systems — Work group server operating systems —
Streaming media players — Decision finding infringements of
Article 82 EC — Refusal of the dominant undertaking to
supply and authorise the use of interoperability information
— Supply by the dominant undertaking of its client PC oper-
ating system conditional on the simultaneous acquisition of its
media player — Remedies — Appointment of an independent
monitoring trustee — Fine — Determination of the amount
— Proportionality)

(2007/C 269/80)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Microsoft Corp.
States) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer, and I. Forrester QC)

(Redmond, Washington, United

Defendants: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented initially by: R. Wainwright, F. Castillo de la Torre,
P. Hellström and A. Whelan, Agents, and subsequently by
F. Castillo de la Torre, P. Hellström and A. Whelan)

Inc.

(Oakbrook Terrace,

Interveners in support of the applicant: The Computing Technology
Industry Association,
Illinois, United
States) (represented by: G. van Gerven and T. Franchoo, lawyers,
and B. Kilpatrick, Solicitor); DMDsecure.com BV (Amsterdam,
Netherlands); MPS Broadband AB (Stockholm, Sweden); Pace
Micro Technology plc
(Shipley, West Yorkshire, United
Kingdom); Quantel Ltd (Newbury, Berkshire, United Kingdom);
Tandberg Television Ltd (Southampton, Hampshire, United

of

for

annulment

Application
Commission Decision
2007/53/EC of 24 March 2004 relating to a proceeding
pursuant to Article 82 [EC] and Article 54 of the EEA Agree-
(Case COMP/C-3/37.792 —
ment against Microsoft Corp.
Microsoft) (OJ 2007 L 32, p. 23) or, in the alternative, annul-
ment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant in that
decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Annuls Article 7 of Commission Decision 2007/53/EC of
24 March 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82
[EC] and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement against Microsoft
Corp. (Case COMP/C-3/37.792 — Microsoft), in so far as:

— it orders Microsoft to submit a proposal for the establishment
of a mechanism which is to include a monitoring trustee with
the power to have access, independently of the Commission, to
information, documents, premises and
Microsoft's assistance,
employees and to the source code of
the relevant Microsoft
products;

— it requires that

the proposal
for
that
the establishment of
the costs associated with the
mechanism provide that all
appointment of the monitoring trustee, including his remunera-
tion, be borne by Microsoft; and

— it reserves to the Commission the right to impose by way of
decision a mechanism such as that referred to in the first and
second indents above;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

3. Orders Microsoft to bear 80 % of its own costs and to pay 80 %
of the Commission's costs, with the exception of the costs incurred
by the Commission in connection with the intervention of The
Computing Technology Industry Association, Inc., Association for
Competitive Technology,
Inc., TeamSystem SpA, Mamut ASA,
DMDsecure.com BV, MPS Broadband AB, Pace Micro Technology
plc, Quantel Ltd, Tandberg Television Ltd and Exor AB;