93/252/EEC: Commission Decision of 10 November 1992 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the EEC Treaty (Cases No IV/33.440 Warner- Lambert/Gillette and Others and No IV/33.486 BIC/Gillette and Others) (Only the English and Dutch texts are authentic)

• Articles: 6

Article 1

Gillette's participation in the purchase of the Wilkinson Sword business from Stora as described in this Decision constitutes an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 86 of the EEC Treaty.

Article 2

Gillette and Eemland have infringed Article 85 (1) of the EEC Treaty by entering into the non-Community sale agreement and the intellectual property manufacturing and distribution agreement in so far as these agreements relate to the former German Democratic Republic and to neighbouring markets in Europe and thereby result in commercial cooperation between Gillette and Eemland within the Community.

Article 3

An exemption pursuant to Article 85 (3) of the EEC Treaty for the agreements as mentioned in Article 2 is hereby refused.

Article 4

Gillette shall bring the infringement mentioned in Article 1 to an end within a period of [ . . . ] by disposing of its equity interest in Eemland and its interest as a creditor of Eemland, failing which Gillette shall irrevocably appoint an independent third party, on terms to be approved by the Commission, to act on Gillette's behalf in making the disposals required by this Decision.

Article 5

Gillette and Eemland shall bring the infringements mentioned in Article 2 to an end within a period of [ . . . ] by re-assigning to Eemland the Wilkinson Sword businesses including trade marks in the former German Democratic Republic, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Turkey, the former Yugoslavia and the EFTA countries.

Article 6

This Decision is addressed to:

- The Gillette Company,

Prudential Tower Building,

Boston, Massachusetts,

United States of America;

- Eemland Holdings NV,

Egelenburg 152,

1081 GK Amsterdam,

The Netherlands.

Done at Brussels, 10 November 1992.

For the Commission

Leon BRITTAN

Vice-President

(1) OJ No 13, 21. 2. 1962, p. 204/62.

(2) OJ No 127, 20. 8. 1963, p. 2268/63.

(3) Case C-62//86, Akzo Chemie BV v. Commisson [1991] ECR, I to 3359 (paragraph 60).

(4) Case 322/81, Michelin v. Commission [1983] ECR 3461 and 3511 (paragraph 57).

(5) Case 85/76, Hofmann-La Roche v. Commission [1979] ECR 461 and 541 (paragraph 91).

(6) Joined Cases 142 and 156/84, BAT and Reynolds [1987] ECR p. 4487.

(7) In the published version of the Decision, some information has been omitted, pursuant to the provision of Article 17 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 concerning non-disclosure of business secrets. However, for a better understanding of the text, some general information has been given in a footnote in those cases where it was possible to do so without violating the non-disclosure requirement for business secrets. In this case, sales are intended to increase almost fourfold.

(8) Sales are estimated to fall by almost one third.

(9) BAT and Reynolds v. Commission [1987] ECR 4487 and 4577 (paragraph 37).