Case C-81/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Cour de cassation, Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber, by judgment of that court of 13 February 2001 in the case of SARL, Borie Manoux v Directeur de l'Institut national de la propriété industrielle (INPI)
Date: 2001-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer information, interpretation of the law, location of production, product designation, trade-mark law, wine

C 108/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.4.2001

Must Article 3(a) and (b) of the Treaty of Rome, the first recital
in the preamble to, and Article 3(2) of, Directive 92/12 of
25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products
subject to excise duty (1), and the sixth and eighth recitals in
the preamble to Directive 92/81 of 19 October 1992 on the
harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral
oils (2) be interpreted as precluding the French Republic
from refusing to reimburse the domestic duty on petroleum
products (TIPP) paid by a trader in petroleum products
following the failure by one of his customers to make payment?

(1) Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general
arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the
holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992
L 76, 23.03.1992, p. 1).

(2) Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmon-
isation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992
L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 12).

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Cour de
cassation, Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber,
by judgment of that court of 13 February 2001 in the case
of SARL, Borie Manoux v Directeur de l’Institut national
de la propriété industrielle (INPI)

(Case C-81/01)

(2001/C 108/18)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the French Cour de
cassation (Court of Cassation), Commercial, Financial and
Economic Chamber, of 13 February 2001, received at the
Court Registry on 16 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of SARL Borie Manoux v Directeur de l’Institut
national de la propriété industrielle (INPI) on the following
question:

Must Article 40 of Regulation No 2392/89 (1) be interpreted
as prohibiting the registration as a trade mark, for the products
covered by the regulation, of a geographical reference the use
of which is not provided for by Article 11, even where the
registration of such a trade mark is not likely to mislead the
consumer as to the provenance of the wine and does not
give rise to any confusion with a registered geographical
designation, in so far as such registration might suggest that
the geographical reference in question, which relates to the
region where that wine is actually produced but which covers
other designations of origin, is protected?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
Grande Instance (Regional Court), Paris (31st Chamber)
by judgment of that court of 19 February 2001 in the case
of Ministère Public against John Greenham and Léonard
Abel

(Case C-95/01)

(2001/C 108/19)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of
the Tribunal de
Grande Instance (Regional Court), Paris (31st Chamber) of
19 February 2001, received at the Court Registry on 27 Febru-
ary 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministère
Public against John Greenham and Léonard Abel on the
following question:

Must Articles 28 and 30 of the Treaty be interpreted as
prohibiting a Member State from preventing the free move-
ment and marketing of a food supplement lawfully sold in
another Member State?

Action brought on 27 February 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg

(Case C-97/01)

(2001/C 108/20)

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice on 27 February 2001 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by S. Rating and F. Siredey-Garnier, acting as Agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2392/89 of 24 July 1989 laying
down general rules for the description and presentation of wines
and grape musts (OJ L 232, 9.8.1989, p. 13).

— declare that, by failing to ensure the transposition in
practice of Article 4d of Directive 90/388/EEC(1), as
amended by Directive 96/19/EC (2), the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg has failed to comply with its obligations;

— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.