Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 January 2003 in Case C-292/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Davidoff & Cie SA, Zino Davidoff SA v Gofkid Ltd (Directive 89/104/EEC — Articles 4(4)(a) and 5(2) — Well-known trade marks — Protection against use of a sign in respect of identical or similar products or services)
Date: 2003-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, trade mark, trade-mark law

C 44/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.2.2003

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 9 January 2003

in Case C-292/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesgerichtshof): Davidoff & Cie SA, Zino Davidoff
SA v Gofkid Ltd (1)

(Directive 89/104/EEC — Articles 4(4)(a) and 5(2) — Well-
known trade marks — Protection against use of a sign in
respect of identical or similar products or services)

(2003/C 44/10)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-292/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Davidoff & Cie SA, Zino Davidoff SA and Gofkid Ltd, on the
interpretation of Articles 4(4)(a) and 5(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 (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rap-
Judges;
porteur), V. Skouris, F. Macken and N. Colneric,
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 January
2003, in which it has ruled:

Articles 4(4)(a) and 5(2) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of
21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States
relating to trade marks are to be interpreted as entitling the Member
States to provide specific protection for well-known registered trade
marks in cases where a later mark or sign, which is identical with or
similar to the registered mark, is intended to be used or is used for
goods or services identical with or similar to those covered by the
registered mark.

(Fifth Chamber)

of 16 January 2003

in Case C-315/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof): Rudolf Maierhofer v Finanzamt
Augsburg-Land (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Letting of immov-
able property — Prefabricated building which can be dis-
mantled and reassembled)

(2003/C 44/11)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-315/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Rudolf
Maierhofer and Finanzamt Augsburg-Land, on the interpret-
ation of Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/
EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system
of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977
L 145, p. 1),
(Fifth Chamber), composed of:
M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans,
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
trator, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 January 2003, in
which it has ruled:

the Court

1.

The letting of a building constructed from prefabricated
components fixed to or in the ground in such a way that they
cannot be easily dismantled or easily moved constitutes a letting
of immovable property for the purposes of Article 13B(b) of
Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
basis of assessment, even if the building is to be removed at the
end of the lease and re-used on another site;

2. Whether the lessor makes available to the lessee both the
building and the land on which it is erected or merely the
building which he has erected on the lessee’s land is irrelevant
in determining whether a letting constitutes a letting of
immovable property for the purposes of Article 13B(b) of the
Sixth Directive 77/388.

( 1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.

(1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.