Case C-100/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that Court of 7 February 2002 in the case of Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. against Putsch GmbH
Date: 2002-06-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: brand name, interpretation of the law, preliminary issue, trade mark, trade-mark law

15.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 144/15

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
gerichtshof by order of that Court of 28 February 2002 on
the appeal brought by Hannl + Hofstetter Internationale
Spedition GmbH against Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,
Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Berufungssenat II der
Region Wien)

1.

2.

(Case C-91/02)

(2002/C 144/24)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
hof (Administrative Court) of 28 February 2002, received at
the Court Registry on 15 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling
on the appeal brought by Hannl + Hofstetter Internationale
Spedition GmbH against Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,
Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Berufungssenat II der Region
Wien) on the following question:

Is the increase in duty under Paragraph 108(1) of the Austrian
Zollrechts-Durchführungsgesetz, which is payable in the event
of the incurrence of a customs debt under Articles 202 to 205
or 210 or 211 of the Customs Code or in the event of
subsequent recovery under Article 220 of the Customs Code
and which corresponds to the amount which would have been
incurred as interest on arrears for the period between the
incurrence of the customs debt and the entry in the accounts,
and in the case of subsequent recovery under Article 220 of
the Customs Code between the date when the customs debt
originally entered in the accounts was due and the entry in the
accounts of the customs debt to be subsequently recovered,
contrary to Community customs provisions?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundes-
gerichtshof by order of that Court of 7 February 2002 in
the case of Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. against
Putsch GmbH

(Case C-100/02)

(2002/C 144/25)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice) of 7 February 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 18 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. against Putsch
GmbH on the following questions:

Is Article 6(1)(b) of the Trade Mark Directive (1) also
applicable if a third party uses the indications referred to
therein as trade marks?

If so, must their use as trade marks be taken into account
when it is considered, pursuant to the final clause of
Article 6(1) of the Trade Mark Directive, whether ‘honest
practices in industrial or commercial matters’ prevail?

(1) OJ L 40, 11 February 1989, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
richt Stuttgart by order of that Court of 5 March 2002 in
the administrative-law case of Ingeborg Beuttenmüller
against Land Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-102/02)

(2002/C 144/26)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
Stuttgart (Stuttgart Administrative Court) of 5 March 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 20 March 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the administrative-law case of Ingeborg
Beuttenmüller against Land Baden-Württemberg on the follow-
ing questions:

1.

2.

Is Article 3, in conjunction with Article 4, of Council
Directive 89/48/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 on a
general system for the recognition of higher-education
diplomas awarded on completion of professional edu-
cation and training of at least three years’ duration directly
applicable so that a national of a Member State may rely
directly on the provisions of the directive where it has
not been correctly transposed into national law?

Is Article 3, in conjunction with Article 4, of Council
Directive 92/51/EEC (2) of 18 June 1992 on a second
general system for the recognition of professional edu-
cation and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC
directly applicable so that, in the absence of implementing
measures enacted within the period prescribed for that
purpose, a national of a Member State may rely on
those provisions of the directive as against all national
provisions that are not in conformity with the directive?