Case C-40/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of 26 January 2001 in the case of Ansul B.V. and Ajax Brandbeveiliging B.V.
Date: 2001-03-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, interpretation of the law, marketing, trade-mark law

24.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 95/5

Reference for a preliminary ruling form the Kilpailuneu-
vosto by order of that tribunal of 14 December 2000 in
the case of Arkkitehtuuritoimisto Riitta Korhonen Oy,
Arkkitehtitoimisto Pentti Toivanen Oy and Rakennuttaja-
toimisto Vilho Tervomaa v Varkauden Taitotalo Oy

Must the words ‘put to genuine use’
in Article 12(1) of
Directive 89/104/EEC (1) be interpreted in the manner set out
in paragraph 3.4 above (2) and, if the answer is in the negative,
on the basis of which (other) criterion must the meaning of
‘genuine use’ be determined?

(Case C-18/01)

(2001/C 95/07)

Can there be ‘genuine use’ as referred to above also where no
new goods are traded under the trade mark but other activities
are engaged in as set out in subparagraphs (v) and (vi) of
paragraph 3.1 above (3)?

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Kilpailuneuvosto
(Competition Council), Finland, of 14 December 2000, which
was received at the Court Registry on 16 January 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Arkkitehtuuritoimisto Riitta
Korhonen Oy, Arkkitehtitoimisto Pentti Toivanen Oy and
Rakennuttajatoimisto Vilho Tervomaa v Varkauden Taitotalo
Oy on the following question:

Is a share company which a town owns and in which the town
exercises control to be regarded as a contracting authority
within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Council Directive
92/50/EEC relating to the coordination of procedures for the
award of public service contracts (1), if the company acquires
design and project management services for a building project
comprising offices to be leased to undertakings?

As a supplementary question, the Kilpailuneuvosto enquires
whether it affects the decision on the point that the town’s
building project endeavours to create the conditions for
business activity to be carried on in the town.

As a second supplementary question, the Kilpailuneuvosto
enquires whether it affects the decision on the point that the
offices to be built are leased to one undertaking only.

(1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.

(1) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989.

(2) The question whether a particular use can be regarded as ‘genuine
use’ can be answered only (i) by taking into consideration all the
facts and circumstances specific to the case whereby (ii) the
decisive factor is whether all the facts and circumstances specific
to the case, when viewed in connection with one another and in
the context of what is regarded as usual and commercially justified
in the relevant sector of the trade, create the impression that the
use serves to find or preserve a market for goods and services
under that trade mark and not simply to maintain the trade mark,
and whereby (iii) account must generally be taken, as regards
these facts and circumstances, of the kind, extent, frequency,
regularity and duration of the use in conjunction with the kind of
goods or service and the kind and size of the undertaking.

(3) Sale of components and extinguishing compositions for fire-
extinguishing apparatus covered by the trade mark MINIMAX to
undertakings which maintained similar apparatus. Maintaining,
checking,
fire-
extinguishing apparatus marked with the trade mark MINIMAX,
using stickers bearing the words ‘Gebruiksklaar Minimax’ (Read
for use — Minimax).

and overhauling of

regauging,

repairing

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden by order of 26 January 2001 in the case of
Ansul B.V. and Ajax Brandbeveiliging B.V.

(Case C-40/01)

(2001/C 95/08)

Appeal brought on 1 February 2001 by Sandro Cognigni
against the order made on 30 November 2000 by the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities
(First Chamber) in Case T-314/00 Sandro Cognigni vo
Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-43/01 P)

(2001/C 95/09)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 26 January 2001 by
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of
the
Netherlands), which was received at the Court Registry on
31 January 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ansul
B.V. and Ajax Brandbeveiliging B.V. on the following questions:

An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 1 February 2001 by Sandro
Cognigni, represented by Walter Massucci, of the Fermo (AP)
Bar, having Chambers in Pedaso, 5 Via Giovanni XXIII, against
the order made on 30 November 2000 by the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case
T-314/00 Sandro Cognigni v Commission of the EC.