In Case T-38/04

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

31 March 2008(*)

(Rectification of a judgment)

In Case T-38/04 REC,

Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd, established in Hsinchu (Taiwan), represented by H. Eichmann, G. Barth, U. Blumenröder, C. Niklas-Falter, M. Kinkeldey, K. Brandt, A. Franke, U. Stephani, B. Allekotte, E. Pfrang, K. Lochner, B. Ertle, C. Neuhierl and S. Prückner, lawyers,

applicant,

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent,

defendant,

the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance, being

Sun Microsystems, Inc., established in Palo Alto, California (United States of America), represented by M. Graf, lawyer,

ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 October 2003 (Case R 642/2000-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Sun Microsystems, Inc. and Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Second Chamber),

composed of I.Pelikánová,President,K.Jürimäe (Rapporteur) and S.Soldevila Fragoso,Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

1On 15 November 2007 the Court of First Instance gave judgment in Case T-38/04.

2In accordance with Article 84(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the parties having been given an opportunity to lodge their written observations pursuant to Article 84(2) of the Rules of Procedure, it is necessary to rectify a clerical mistake found in paragraph 22 of the version of the judgment in the language of the case.

On those grounds,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Second Chamber)

hereby orders:

The first sentence of paragraph 22 of the version of the judgment in the language of the case should read ‘The applicant also challenges that the earlier trade marks enjoy greater protection because they are more distinctive’ instead of ‘The applicant also argues that the earlier trade marks enjoy greater protection because they are more distinctive’.

Luxembourg, 31 March 2008.

* Language of the case: English.