Case C-235/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de 1a Instancia n° 35 (Barcelona) by order of that Court of 5 May 2003 in the case of QDQ Media S.A. against A. Omedas Lecha
Date: 2003-07-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, legal expenses, payment, trading operation

19.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/19

(3) How should the requirement

that the use must be
‘necessary’ to indicate the intended purpose of a product
be interpreted? Can the criterion of necessity be satisfied
even though it would in itself be possible to state the
intended purpose without an express reference to the
third party’s trade mark, by merely mentioning only for
instance the technical principle of functioning of the
product? What significance does it have in that case that
the statement may be more difficult for consumers to
understand if there is no express reference to the third
party’s trade mark?

(4) What factors should be taken into account when assessing
accordance with honest commercial practice? Does the
mentioning of a third party’s trade mark in connection
with the marketing of one’s own product constitute a
reference to the fact that the marketer’s own product
corresponds, in quality and technically or as regards its
other properties, to the product designated by the third
party’s trade mark?

(5) Does it affect the permissibility of the use of a third
party’s trade mark that the economic operator who refers
to the third party’s trade mark also markets, in addition
to a spare part or accessory, a product of his own which
that spare part or accessory is intended to be used with?

( 1) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
marks (OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1).

Action brought on 5 June 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
Netherlands

(Case C-241/03)

(2003/C 171/28)

An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
5 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communi-
ties, represented by G. Zavvos and W. Wils, as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the
laws of the Members States relating to insurance against
civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and
amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/
EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) (1), or in any
event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the
Kingdom of
its
obligations under that directive;

the Netherlands has failed to fulfil

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

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de
1a Instancia no 35 (Barcelona) by order of that Court of
5 May 2003 in the case of QDQ Media S.A. against
A. Omedas Lecha

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time limit for compliance with the directive expired on
20 July 2002.

(Case C-235/03)

(2003/C 171/27)

(1) OJ 2000 L 181, p. 65.

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Juzgado de 1a Instancia
no 35 (Court of First Instance No 35) (Barcelona) of 5 May
2003, received at the Court Registry on 2 June 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of QDQ Media S.A. against
A. Omedas Lecha on the following question:

Within the context of the protection accorded a creditor under
Directive 2000/35/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in
commercial transaction, is it possible to regard as a debt-
related recovery cost the expenses arising from the use of legal
representation and assistance in the enforcement proceedings
brought for the purpose of recovering that debt.

( 1) OJ L 200 of 8.8.2000, p. 35.

Action brought on 6 June 2003 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-243/03)

(2003/C 171/29)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 June 2003
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by E. Traversa, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.