# C_2007082EN.01000401.xml

| 14.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 February 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) — BVBA Management, Training en Consultancy v Benelux-Merkenbureau

(Case C-239/05) (1)

1

(Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Application for registration of a trade mark for a range of goods and services - Examination of the sign by the competent authority - Taking account of all the relevant facts and circumstances - Jurisdiction of the national court seised of an action)

(2007/C 82/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BVBA Management, Training en Consultancy

Applicant:

Defendant: Benelux-Merkenbureau

Defendant:

Objet

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Brussel — Interpretation of Article 3 of First Council Directive 89/104 EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Application for registration of the trade mark ‘The Kitchen Company ’— Examination of the sign by the competent authority — Taking account of all the relevant facts and circumstances — Judgment in Koninklijke KPN Nederland

Koninklijke KPN Nederland

Re:

First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that:

| — | when refusing registration of a trade mark, the competent authority is required to state in its decision its conclusion for each of the individual goods and services specified in the application for registration, regardless of the manner in which that application was formulated. However, where the same ground of refusal is given for a category or group of goods or services, the competent authority may use only general reasoning for all of the goods or services concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

when refusing registration of a trade mark, the competent authority is required to state in its decision its conclusion for each of the individual goods and services specified in the application for registration, regardless of the manner in which that application was formulated. However, where the same ground of refusal is given for a category or group of goods or services, the competent authority may use only general reasoning for all of the goods or services concerned;

| — | it does not preclude national legislation which prevents the court reviewing the decision of the competent authority from ruling on the distinctive character of the mark separately for each of the individual goods and services specified in the trade mark application, where neither that decision nor that application related to categories of goods or services or goods or services considered separately; |
| --- | --- |

—

it does not preclude national legislation which prevents the court reviewing the decision of the competent authority from ruling on the distinctive character of the mark separately for each of the individual goods and services specified in the trade mark application, where neither that decision nor that application related to categories of goods or services or goods or services considered separately;

| — | it does not preclude national legislation which prevents the court reviewing a decision of the competent authority from taking account of facts and circumstances which arose after that decision had been taken. |
| --- | --- |

—

it does not preclude national legislation which prevents the court reviewing a decision of the competent authority from taking account of facts and circumstances which arose after that decision had been taken.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 3.9.2005.

1

---