Case T-271/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 April 2008 — Deutsche Telekom v Commission (Competition — Article 82 EC — Charges for access to the fixed-line telecommunications network in Germany — Margin squeeze — Charges approved by the national regulatory authority for telecommunications — Leeway of the dominant undertaking)
Date: 2008-04-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), competition, telecommunications, telephone charges

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/29

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 April 2008
— Deutsche Telekom v Commission

Operative part of the judgment

(Case T-271/03) (1)

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

(Competition — Article 82 EC — Charges for access to the
fixed-line telecommunications network in Germany — Margin
squeeze — Charges approved by the national regulatory
authority for telecommunications — Leeway of the dominant
undertaking)

(2008/C 128/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented
by:
initially, K. Quack, U. Quack and S. Ohlhoff, and subse-
quently, U. Quack and S. Ohlhoff, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
then
sented by:
subsequently,
and
K. Mojzesowicz
K. Mojzesowicz, W. Mölls and O. Weber, Agents)

initially, K. Mojzesowicz and S. Rating,

and A. Whelan,

the defendant: Arcor AG & Co. KG
Interveners in support of
initially, M. Klusmann,
(Eschborn, Germany), (represented by:
F. Wiemer and M. Rosenthal, then M. Klusmann and F. Wiemer,
and subsequently, M. Klusmann, lawyers); Versatel NRW GmbH,
formerly Tropolys NRW GmbH,
formerly CityKom Münster
GmbH Telekommunikationsservice and TeleBeL Gesellschaft für
Telekommunikation Bergisches Land mbH (Essen, Germany);
EWE TEL GmbH (Oldenburg, Germany); HanseNet Telekommu-
nikation GmbH (Hamburg, Germany); Versatel Nord-Deutsch-
land GmbH, formerly KomTel Gesellschaft für Kommunikations-
und Informationsdienste mbH (Flensburg, Germany); NetCo-
für Telekommunikation mbH (Cologne,
logne Gesellschaft
Germany); Versatel Süd-Deutschland GmbH,
formerly tesion
Telekommunikation GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany); and Versatel
West-Deutschland GmbH, formerly Versatel Deutschland GmbH
(represented by N. Nolte,
& Co. KG (Dortmund, Germany)
T. Wessely and J. Tiedemann, lawyers)

Re:

of

for

annulment

Application
Commission Decision
2003/707/EC of 21 May 2003 relating to a proceeding under
Article 82 EC (Case COMP/C 1/37.451, 37.578, 37.579 —
Deutsche Telekom AG) (OJ 2003 L 263, p. 9), and, in the alter-
native, reduction of
in
Article 3 of that decision.

the fine imposed on the applicant

2. Orders Deutsche Telekom AG to bear its own costs and to pay

those incurred by the Commission;

3. Orders (1) Arcor AG & Co. KG and (2) Versatel NRW GmbH,
EWE TEL GmbH, HanseNet Telekommunikation GmbH, Versatel
Nord-Deutschland GmbH, NetCologne Gesellschaft für Telekom-
munikation mbH, Versatel Süd-Deutschland GmbH and Versatel
West Deutschland GmbH to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 264, 1.11.2003.

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 April 2008
— Dainichiseika Colour & Chemicals Mfg. v OHIM
(Representation of a pelican)

(Case T-389/03) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Appli-
cation for a figurative Community trade mark depicting a
pelican — Earlier Community or national figurative trade
mark Pelikan — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of
confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 128/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Dainichiseika Colour & Chemicals Mfg. Co. Ltd
(Tokyo,
J. Hofmann and B. Linstow,
lawyers)

(represented by:

Japan)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
J. Laporta Insa,
(Trade Marks and Designs)
Agent)

(represented by:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM
intervening before the Court of First Instance: Pelikan Vertriebsges-
sellschaft mbH & Co.KG (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: A.
Renck, V. von Bomhard and A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by
A. Renck, V. von Bomhard and T. Dolde, lawyers)