Judgment of the Court of 14 December 2000 in Case C-344/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland)): Masterfoods Ltd v HB Ice Cream Ltd and HB Ice Cream Ltd v Masterfoods Ltd, trading as "Mars Ireland" (Competition — Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC and 82 EC) — Parallel proceedings before national and Community courts)
Date: 2001-04-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Ireland, dairy ice cream, exclusive distribution agreement, household electrical appliance, interpretation of the law, restriction on competition

21.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 118/7

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 14 December 2000

in Joined Cases C-300/98 and C-392/98 (references for a
preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank
’s-Gravenhage and the Hoge Raad Der Nederlanden):
Parfums Christian Dior SA v Tuk Consultancy BV
(C-300/98), and Assco Gerüste GmbH and Rob van Dijk,
trading as ‘Assco Holland Steigers Plettac Nederland’
v Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co. KG and Layher BV
(C-392/98) (1)

(Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation —
TRIPs Agreement — Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now
Article 234 EC) — Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice —
Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement — Provisional measures
— Interpretation — Direct effect)

(2001/C 118/10)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

(C-392/98)

In Joined Cases C-300/98 and C-392/98: references to the
Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article
234 EC) from the Arrondissementsrechtbank ’s-Gravenhage
(Netherlands) (C-300/98) and the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
for a preliminary ruling in the
(Netherlands)
proceedings pending before those courts between Parfums
Christian Dior SA and Tuk Consultancy BV (C-300/98) and
between Assco Gerüste GmbH and Rob van Dijk, trading as
‘Assco Holland Steigers Plettac Nederland’, and Wilhelm Layher
GmbH & Co. KG and Layher BV (C-392/98) — on the
interpretation of Article 50 of the Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, as set out in Annex 1 C
to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation,
approved on behalf of the Community, as regards matters
within its competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of
22 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 1) — the Court,
composed of: G.C. Rodrı´guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann,
A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Presidents of
J.-P. Puissochet,
Chambers), D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur),
Judges;
P.
Jann, L. Sevo´ n, R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 December 2000, in
which it has ruled:

1. Where the judicial authorities of the Member States are called
upon to order provisional measures for the protection of
intellectual property rights falling within the scope of the
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights (the TRIPs Agreement), as set out in Annex 1 C to
the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation,
approved on behalf of the Community, as regards matters
within its competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of
22 December 1994, and a case is brought before the Court of
Justice in accordance with. the provisions of the EC Treaty, in

particular Article 177 thereof (now Article 234 EC), the Court
of Justice has jurisdiction to interpret Article 50 of the TRIPs
Agreement.

2.

In a field to which the TRIPs Agreement applies and in respect
of which the Community has already legislated, the judicial
authorities of the Member States are required by virtue of
Community law, when called upon to apply national rules with
a view to ordering provisional measures for the protection of
rights falling within such a field, to do so as far as possible in
the light of the wording and purpose of Article 50 of the TRIPs
Agreement.

the protection of

In a field in which the Community has not yet legislated and
which consequently falls within the competence of the Member
States,
intellectual property rights, and
measures adopted for that purpose by the judicial authorities,
do not fall within the scope of Community law. Accordingly,
Community law neither requires nor forbids that the legal order
of a Member State should accord to individuals the right to rely
directly on the rule laid down by Article 50(6) of the TRIPs
Agreement or that it should oblige the courts to apply that rule
of their own motion.

3. Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement leaves to the Contracting
Parties, within the framework of their own legal systems, the
task of specifying whether the right
to sue under general
provisions of national law concerning wrongful acts, in particu-
lar unlawful competition,
in order to protect an industrial
design against copying is to be classified as an ‘Intellectual
property right’ within the meaning of Article 50(1) of the
TRIPs Agreement.

(1) OJ C 229 of 26.9.1998.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 14 December 2000

in Case C-344/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Supreme Court (Ireland)): Masterfoods Ltd v HB Ice
Cream Ltd and HB Ice Cream Ltd v Masterfoods Ltd,
trading as ‘Mars Ireland’ (1)

(Competition — Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now
Articles 81 EC and 82 EC) — Parallel proceedings before
national and Community courts)

(2001/C 118/11)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-344/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Supreme Court
(Ireland) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending

C 118/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.4.2001

before that court between Masterfoods Ltd and HB Ice Cream
Ltd and between HB Ice Cream Ltd and Masterfoods Ltd,
trading as ‘Mars Ireland’ — on the interpretation of Articles 85,
86 and 222 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and
295 EC), — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı´guez Iglesias,
President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and
V. Skouris
(Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward,
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevo´ n (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen
Cosmas, Advocate General;
and F. Macken,
L. Hewlett, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 14 December 2000, in which it has ruled:

Judges; G.

Ferdinando Pavan and Others v AIMA and the Ministry
of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-493/00);
Associazione dei Produttori di Latte delle Terre del
Granducato ed altre Aziende v AIMA and the Ministry of
the Treasury, the Budget and Planning and the Regione
Toscana (Case C-494/00); Associazione Agricola Produtto-
ri Castellani s.c.a.r.l. and Others v AIMA and the Ministry
of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-496/00);
Aziende Agricole Pietro Baita and Others v AIMA and
the Ministry of Agricultural
and Forestry Policy
(C-500/00), and Giorgio Accarini and Others v AIMA and
the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning
(C-21/01)

Where a national court is ruling on an agreement or practice the
compatibility of which with Articles 85(1) and 86 of the EC Treaty
(now Articles 81(1) EC and Article 82 EC) is already the subject of
a Commission decision, it cannot take a decision running counter to
that of the Commission, even if the latter’s decision conflicts with a
decision given by a national court of first instance. If the addressee of
the Commission decision has, within the period prescribed in the fifth
paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC), brought an action for
annulment of that decision, it is for the national court to decide
whether to stay proceedings pending final judgment in that action for
annulment or in order to refer a question to the Court
for a
preliminary ruling.

(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.

References for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by orders of that
court of 6 July 2000 in the cases of Azienda Agricola
Nardoni di Benedetto Nardoni v Azienda di Stato per gli
Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry
of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (Case C-483/00);
Azienda Agricola Antonio Tonon v AIMA, the other
party being the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and
Planning (C-485/00); Azienda Agricola Beniamino Brutti,
by Mario Zanetti and Others v AIMA, the other party
being the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and
Planning (Case C-486/00), also Cooperativa Agricola Latte
2001 and Others; Cooperativa Nuova Latte s.r.l. v AIMA
and the Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policy
(C-487/00); Azienda Agricola Fermo and Gabriele Borini
(C-488/00); Giuseppe de Marchi and Others (C-492/00);

(Cases C-483/00, C-485/00 to C-488/00, C-492/00 to
C-494/00, C-496/00, C-500/00 and C-21/01)

(2001/C 118/12)

References have been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by orders of 6 July 2000 of the
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, received at
the Court Registry on 29 December 2000, for a preliminary
ruling in the cases of Azienda Agricola Nardoni di Benedetto
Nardoni v Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato
Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget
and Planning (Case C-483/00); Azienda Agricola Antonio
the other party being the Ministry of
Tonon v AIMA,
the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-485/00); Azienda
Agricola Beniamino Brutti, by Mario Zanetti and Others v
AIMA, the other party being the Ministry of the Treasury,
the Budget and Planning (Case C-486/00), also Cooperativa
Agricola Latte 2001 and Others; Cooperativa Nuova Latte s.r.l.
v AIMA and the Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policy
(C-487/00); Azienda Agricola Fermo and Gabriele Borini
(C-488/00); Giuseppe de Marchi and Others (C-492/00);
Ferdinando Pavan and Others v AIMA and the Ministry of the
Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-493/00); Associazione
dei Produttori di Latte delle Terre del Granducato ed altre
Aziende v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget
and Planning and the Regione Toscana (Case C-494/00);
Associazione Agricola Produttori Castellani s.c.a.r.l. and Others
v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and
Planning (C-496/00); Aziende Agricole Pietro Baita and Others
v AIMA and the Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policy
(C-500/00), and Giorgio Accarini and Others v AIMA and the
Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-21/01)
on the following questions: