Judgment of the Court of 23 October 2003 in Case C-191/01 P: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Absolute ground for refusal to register — Distinctive character — Marks consisting exclusively of descriptive signs or indications — Doublemint)
Date: 2003-12-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), infringement of EU law, trade mark

C 304/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.12.2003

Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
(EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1),
and on the interpretation of Articles 49 EC and 50 EC, the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans,
President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of
the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann, S. von
Bahr and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2003, in which it
has ruled:

1.

2.

Consideration of the first part of the question has disclosed no
factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 22(1)(c)(i)
of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June
1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
families moving within the Community, as amended and
updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December
1996.

The second subparagraph of Article 22(2) of Regulation
No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/
97, must be interpreted as meaning that the authorisation to
which that provision refers may not be refused where it is
apparent, first, that the treatment in question is among the
benefits provided for by the legislation of the Member State on
whose territory the person concerned resides and, secondly, that
treatment which is the same or equally effective cannot be
obtained without undue delay in that Member State.

3. Articles 49 EC and 50 EC must be interpreted as not precluding
legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main
proceedings, which, first, makes reimbursement of the cost of
hospital care provided in a Member State other than that in
which the insured person’s sickness fund is established con-
ditional upon prior authorisation by that fund and, secondly,
makes the grant of that authorisation subject to the condition
that it be established that the insured person could not receive
within the territory of the Member State where the fund is
established the treatment appropriate to his condition. However,
authorisation may be refused on that ground only if treatment
which is the same or equally effective for the patient can be
obtained without undue delay in the territory of the Member
State in which he resides.

(1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 23 October 2003

in Case C-191/01 P: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v
Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (1)

(Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 — Absolute ground for refusal to register —
Distinctive character — Marks consisting exclusively of
descriptive signs or indications — Doublemint)

(2003/C 304/03)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-191/01 P, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: V. Melgar
and S. Laitinen), with an address for service in Luxembourg,
supported by Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: A. Dittrich
and B. Muttelsee-Schön) with an address for service in
Luxembourg, and by United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland (Agent: J. E. Collins, assisted by D. Alexander)
with an address for service in Luxembourg: Appeal against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities (Second Chamber) of 31 January 2001 in Case
T-193/99 Wrigley v OHIM (DOUBLEMINT) [2001] ECR II-
417, seeking to have that judgment set aside, in which the
Court of First Instance annulled the decision of the First Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 June 1999 (Case R
216/1998-1) dismissing the appeal brought by Wm. Wrig-
ley Jr. Company against the refusal to register the word
DOUBLEMINT as a Community trade mark, the other party to
the proceedings being: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company, established
in Chicago, Illinois (United States of America), represented by
M. Kinkeldey, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, the Court, composed of: V. Skouris, President,
P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodri-
gues and A. Rosas (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward,
A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen,
F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
given a judgment on 23 October 2003, in which it:

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities of 31 January 2001 in Case T-193/
99 Wrigley v OHIM (DOUBLEMINT);

13.12.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/3

2.

3.

Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance;

2.

Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 200 of 14.07.2001.

The connections which must link films in order that they can
come within the exception laid down for ‘series’ by Article 11(3)
of Directive 89/552 must relate to the content of the films
concerned, such as, for example, the development of the same
story from one episode to another or the reappearance of one or
more characters in different episodes.

(1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 23 October 2003

in Case C-245/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Niedersächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht): RTL
Television GmbH v Niedersächsische Landesmedienan-
stalt für privaten Rundfunk (1)

(Directive 89/552/EEC — Article 11(3) — Television broad-
casting — Television advertising — Advertising breaks in
audiovisual works — Definition of ‘series’)

(2003/C 304/04)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-245/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Niedersächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht (Ger-
many) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between RTL Television GmbH and Nieder-
sächsische Landesmedienanstalt für privaten Rundfunk, on the
interpretation of Article 11(3) of Council Directive 89/552/
EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain
provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative
action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television
broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23), as amended by
Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 30 June 1997 (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60), the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans
(Rapporteur), President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the
President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and P. Jann,
Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
23 October 2003, in which it has ruled:

1.

covered by the

term ‘films made

Films which have been made for television and which provide,
from their conception, for breaks for the insertion of advertising
are
in
Article 11(3) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October
1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by
law, regulation or administrative action in Member States
concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as
amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 30 June 1997.

television’

for

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 21 October 2003

In Joined Cases C-261/01 and C-262/01 (Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwer-
pen): Belgische Staat v Eugene Van Calster, Felix Cleeren
(C-261/01) and between Belgische Staat and Openbaar
Slachthuis NV (C-262/01) (1)

(Aid financed by parafiscal charges — Compulsory charges
to finance a fund for animal health and livestock production
— Retroactive effect of the charges — Validity of a
Commission decision concerning State aid — Powers of the
Commission)

(2003/C 304/05)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

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

In Joined Cases C-261/01 and C-262/01: Reference to the
Court under Article 234 EC by the Hof van Beroep te
Antwerpen (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-
ings pending before that court between Belgische Staat and
Eugene Van Calster, Felix Cleeren (C-261/01) and between
Belgische Staat and Openbaar Slachthuis NV (C-262/01), on
the interpretation of Community law,
in particular of
Article 93 of the EC Treaty (now Article 88 EC) and Article 173
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC) and
of the Commission Decision of 9 August 1996 relating to aid
measure No N 366/96, the Court, composed of: V. Skouris,
President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), C. Gul-
mann,
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas (Presidents of
Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet,
R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges;
F.G.
Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 October 2003, in which
it has ruled: