Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 December 2002 in Case C-379/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London): Overland Footwear Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Customs Code — Customs value of imported goods — Price of goods and buying commission — Reimbursement of duty payable on full amount)
Date: 2003-01-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs regulations, customs territory (EU), import policy, interpretation of the law, simplification of formalities

25.1.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 19/3

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 12 December 2002

(Sixth Chamber)

in Case C-273/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundespatentgericht): Ralf Sieckmann v Deutsches
Patent- und Markenamt (1)

of 5 December 2002

(Trade marks — Approximation of laws — Directive 89/
104/EEC — Article 2 — Signs of which a trade mark may
consist — Signs capable of being represented graphically —
Olfactory signs)

(2003/C 19/04)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-273/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Ralf Sieckmann and Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt, on the
interpretation of Article 2 of First Council Directive 89/104/
EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the
Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1),
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of
Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rapporteur), N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 12 December 2002, in which it has ruled:

(1) Article 2 of Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December
1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating
to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a trade
mark may consist of a sign which is not in itself capable of
being perceived visually, provided that it can be represented
graphically, particularly by means of images, lines or characters,
and that the representation is clear, precise, self-contained,
easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective.

(2)

In respect of an olfactory sign, the requirements of graphic
representability are not satisfied by a chemical formula, by a
description in written words, by the deposit of an odour sample
or by a combination of those elements.

in Case C-379/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London): Overland
Footwear Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (1)

(Customs Code — Customs value of imported goods — Price
of goods and buying commission — Reimbursement of duty
payable on full amount)

(2003/C 19/05)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-379/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London (United Kingdom),
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Overland Footwear Ltd and Commissioners of
Customs and Excise, on the interpretation of Articles 29, 32,
33, 78 and 236 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code
(OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen,
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodri-
gues, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
5 December 2002, in which it has ruled:

1. Articles 29, 32 and 33 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/
92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs
Code must be construed as meaning that a buying commission
which is included in the customs value declared and is not
shown separately from the selling price of the goods in the
import declaration must be considered to be part of the
transaction value within the meaning of Article 29 of that
regulation and is, therefore, dutiable.

2.

In a situation where the customs authorities have agreed to
undertake revision of an import declaration and have adopted a
decision ‘regularising the situation’ within the meaning of
Article 78(3) of Regulation No 2913/92 taking account of
the fact that the declaration was incomplete as a result of an
inadvertent error by the declarant, those authorities may not go
back on that decision.

( 1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.

(1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.