Case T-410/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 June 2008 — Hoechst v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in sorbates — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Calculation of the amount of the fines — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Aggravating circumstances — Principle non bis in idem — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Access to the file — Duration of the procedure)
Date: 2008-06-18
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), competition law, inter-company agreement

2.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 197/19

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 June 2008 —
Hoechst v Commission

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 June 2008 —
El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Abril Sánchez and Ricote
Saugar (BoomerangTV)

(Case T-410/03) (1)

(Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices
— Market in sorbates — Decision finding an infringement of
Article 81 EC — Calculation of the amount of the fines —
Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based
— Gravity and duration of the infringement — Aggravating
circumstances — Principle non bis in idem — Cooperation
during the administrative procedure — Access to the file —
Duration of the procedure)

(2008/C 197/31)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Hoechst GmbH, formerly Hoechst AG (Frankfurt am
Main, Germany) (represented initially by M. Klusmann and V.
Turner, then by M. Klusmann, V. Turner and M. Rüba, and
finally by M. Klusmann and V. Turner, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented initially by W. Mölls, O. Beynet and K. Mojzesowicz, and
subsequently by W. Mölls and K. Mojzesowicz, Agents, assisted
by A. Böhlke, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment, so far as the applicant is concerned,
of Commission Decision 2005/493/EC of 1 October 2003
relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of
against Chisso Corporation, Daicel
the EEA Agreement
Chemical
Industries Ltd, Hoechst AG, The Nippon Synthetic
Chemical Industry Co. Ltd and Ueno Fine Chemicals Industry
Ltd (Case No COMP/E 1/37.370 — Sorbates)
(Summary in
OJ 2005 L 182, p. 20), or, in the alternative, a reduction to an
appropriate level of the amount of the fine imposed on the
applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

(Case T-420/03) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Appli-
cation for registration of the Community figurative mark
BoomerangTV — Earlier national and Community word and
figurative marks BOOMERANG and Boomerang — Relative
grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No well-
known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6bis of the
Paris Convention — No damage to reputation — Failure to
produce evidence before the Opposition Division of the exis-
tence of certain earlier trade marks or translations thereof —
Production of evidence for the first time before the Board
of Appeal — Article 8(1)(b) and (2)(c), Article 8(5)
and Article 74(2) of Regulation EC No 40/94 — Rule 16(2)
and (3), Rule 17(2) and Rule 20(2) of Regulation (EC)
No 2868/95)

(2008/C 197/32)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: El Corte Inglés SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.
Rivas Zurdo and E. López Leiva, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)
I. de Medrano
Caballero, Agent)

(represented by:

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM
intervening before the Court of First
José Matías Abril
Sánchez and Pedro Ricote Saugar (Madrid) (represented by: J.M.
Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)

Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of
Appeal of OHIM of 1 October 2003 (Case R 88/2003-2),
relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés SA,
and J.M. Abril Sánchez and P. Ricote Saugar.

1. Sets the amount of
EUR 74.25 million.

the fine imposed on Hoechst GmbH at

The Court:

Operative part of the judgment

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action.

1. Dismisses the action;

3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

2. Orders El Corte Inglés SA to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 59, 6.3.2004.

(1) OJ C 47, 21.2.2004.