Case C-206/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order of that court of 4 May 2001, in the case of Arsenal Football Club plc against Matthew Reed
Date: 2001-07-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: brand name, interpretation of the law, trade-mark law

C 212/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

28.7.2001

— Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

(b)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that Netherlands has not correctly
implemented the following provisions of the directive into
Netherlands law:

— Article 8(2) (use of anaesthesia in the case of serious
injury which may cause severe pain): A draft amendment
to the ‘Dierproevenbesluit’ (animal experiments order) for
last sentence,
the implementation of Article 8(2)(b),
of
the directive, was, according to the Netherlands
Government, recently sent for the opinion of the Raad
van State.

— Article 11 (release of animals): The Commission submits
that Article 10(a), second paragraph of the Wet op de
Dierproeven (law on animal experiments) has a general
scope and does not concern specifically the release of
animals.

— Article 18(1) (identification marking of dogs, cats and
primates): There is no provision in Netherlands law to
the effect that before they are weaned they must be provided
with an individual identification mark in the least painful
manner possible.

— Article 22(1) (mutual recognition of results of animal
experiments): The Commission submits that this pro-
vision must be implemented in national law by means of
a statutory provision with binding force.

(1) OJ 1987, L 117, p. 31.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order
of that court of 4 May 2001, in the case of Arsenal
Football Club plc against Matthew Reed

(Case C-206/01)

(2001/C 212/23)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, of 4 May 2001,
which was received at the Court Registry on 18 May 2001, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of Arsenal Football Club plc
against Matthew Reed, on the following questions:

1. Where a trade mark is validly registered and

(a)

a third party uses in the course of trade a sign
identical with that trade mark in relation to goods
which are identical with those for whom the trade-
mark is registered; and

the third party has no defence to infringement by
virtue of Article 6(1) of the Council Directive of the
21st December 1988 to approximate the laws of
the Member States
relating to trade marks
(89/104/EEC) (1);

does the third party have a defence to infringement on
the ground that the use complained of does not indicate
trade origin (i.e. a connection in the course of trade
between the goods and the trade mark proprietor)?

2.

is the fact that the use in question would be
If so,
perceived as a badge of support, loyalty or affiliation to
the trade mark proprietor a sufficient connection?

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

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfin-
anzhof by order of that court of 21 February 2001 in the
case of Theodor Schilling and Angelika Fleck-Schilling v
Finanzamt Nürnberg-Süd

(Case C-209/01)

(2001/C 212/24)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Bundesfinanzhof
(Federal Finance Court) of 21 February 2001, which was
for a
received at
preliminary ruling in the case of Theodor Schilling and
Angelika Fleck-Schilling v Finanzamt Nürnberg-Süd on the
following questions:

the Court Registry on 21 May 2001,

1.

Is it contrary to the first paragraph of Article 14 of the
Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the Euro-
pean Communities of 8 April 1965 (BGBl II 1965, 1482,
1488) if German nationals who work in Luxembourg as
officials of the European Community and live there may
not, in the context of assessment to German income tax,
deduct expenditure in respect of a household help
employed in Luxembourg under Paragraph 10(1)(8) of
the Einkommensteuergesetz (Law on income tax) because
the contributions to the statutory pension insurance
scheme for the household help were not paid to the
German pension insurance scheme?

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is Article 48(4)
of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that an EC
official may not rely on Article 48 of the EC Treaty?