Case C-195/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords, by order of that court of 4 April 2001, in the case of Scandecor Development AB and others against Scandecor Marketing AB and another
Date: 2001-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, trade mark, trade-mark law

14.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 200/53

— Infringement of Article 1(4) of Directive 91/689/EEC:
Under the first indent of Article 1(4), a precise and
uniform definition of hazardous waste, required for
application of the directive, is achieved by reference to
Annexes I, II and III to the directive and the list of
hazardous waste to be drawn up in accordance with the
procedure laid down in Article 18. It follows that, in their
legislation to transpose the directive, the Member States
must take those annexes and that list as a basis for
determining the field of application of their national
provisions. The list, which is contained in Council
Decision 94/904/EC, supplements the provisions of the
directive on hazardous waste.

The possibility for the Member States to adopt stricter
protective measures in fields harmonised by Community
environmental provisions is not to be equated with an
option not to transpose such harmonisation measures.

4. Article 12 of the Trade Marks Directive provides that a
trade mark shall be ‘liable’ to revocation in specified
circumstances. When those circumstances exist, must the
court revoke the trade mark, or does the court retain any
discretion as to whether to revoke?

(1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1.

Action brought on 8 May 2001 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 47.
(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.

(Case C-196/01)

(2001/C 200/95)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords,
by order of that court of 4 April 2001, in the case of
Scandecor Development AB and others against Scandecor
Marketing AB and another

(Case C-195/01)

(2001/C 200/94)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the House of Lords of
4 April 2001, which was received at the Court Registry on
7 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Scandecor
Development AB and others against Scandecor Marketing AB
and another, on the following questions:

1.

Is a trade mark to be regarded as liable to mislead the
public within the meaning of article 12(2)(b) of Council
Directive No 89/1104/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 to
approximate the laws of the Member States relating to
trade marks (the ‘Trade Marks Directive’) if the origin of
the goods denoted by the mark is a bare exclusive
licensee?

2. What are the criteria to be applied in determining whether
a trading relationship comprises a single undertaking for
the purposes of the Trade Marks Directive?

3.

Is a company a person for the purpose of article 6(1)(a)
of the Trade Marks Directive?

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice on 8 May 2001 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
H. Støvlbaek and J. Adda, acting as Agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed
to comply with its obligations under Article 1(a) of
Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on
waste (1), as amended by Council Directive 91/156 EC of
18 March 1991 (2) and Commission Decision 94/3/EC of
20 December 1993 establishing a list of wastes pursuant
to Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC on
waste (3);

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Although the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was obliged,
under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC,
to
incorporate the European Waste Catalogue (EWC), for-
ming the subject-matter of Decision 94/3/EC, into its
national law, it has simply reproduced it in a ministerial
circular which is binding on the administrative authorities
but not on third parties.

— At the same time, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
introduced a nomenclature applying purely to Luxem-
bourg, which is totally different from the EWC. Various
operations in respect of which use of
the EWC is
precluded are linked to the implementation of national
measures designed to transpose the Community legis-
lation on waste. In addition, the coexistence of two lists
(the Luxembourg nomenclature and the EWC) between