Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Joined Cases C-473/01 P and C-474/01 P: Procter & Gamble Company v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 7(1)b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Three-dimensional tablets for washing machine or dishwashers — Absolute ground for refusal to register — Distinctive character)
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, General Court (EU), appeal, household electrical appliance, polishing and scouring preparations

C 118/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 29 April 2004

in Joined Cases C-473/01 P and C-474/01 P: Procter &
Gamble Company v Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 7(1)b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Three-dimensional tablets for
washing machine or dishwashers — Absolute ground for
refusal to register — Distinctive character)

(2004/C 118/28)

(Language of the case: English)

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

Instance of

the Court of First

In Joined Cases C-473/01 P and C-474/01 P: two appeals by
Procter & Gamble Company, established in Cincinnati (United
States) (Lawyers: C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers ) against the
the European
judgments of
Communities (Second Chamber) of 19 September 2001 in Case
T-128/00 Procter & Gamble v OHIM (square tablet with inlay)
[2001] ECR II-2785 and Case T-129/00 Procter & Gamble v
OHIM (rectangular tablet with inlay)
[2001] ECR II-2793,
seeking to have those judgments set aside in part, the other
party to the proceedings being: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: D.
Schennen and C. Røhl Søberg) - the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: V. Skouris, acting as the President of the Sixth
Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen
and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April
2004 in which it:

1. Dismisses the appeals;

2. Orders Procter & Gamble Company to pay the costs.

(Fifth Chamber)

of 29 April 2004

in Case C-476/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Amtsgericht Frankenthal): Felix Kapper (1)

(Directive 91/439/EEC — Mutual recognition of driving
licences — Residence requirement — Article 8(4) — Effects
of withdrawal or cancellation of a previous driving licence —
Recognition of a new driving licence issued by another
Member State)

(2004/C 118/29)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-476/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Amtsgericht (District Court) Frankenthal (Germany)
for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending
before that court against Felix Kapper - on the interpretation of
Article 1(2) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991
on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1), as amended by
Council Directive 97/26/EC of 2 June 1997 (OJ 1997 L 150, p.
41) - the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmer-
mans, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. Rosas
(Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it has ruled:

1. The provisions of Articles 1(2), 7(1)(b) and 9 of Council Directive
91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by
Council Directive 97/26/EC of 2 June 1997, taken together,
must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a Member State
from refusing to recognise a driving licence issued by another
Member State on the ground that, according to the information
available to the first Member State, the holder of the licence had,
on the date on which it was issued, taken up normal residence in
that Member State and not in the Member State in which the
licence was issued.

2. The provisions of Articles 1(2) and 8(4) of Directive 91/439,
taken together, must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude
a Member State from refusing to recognise the validity of a
driving licence issued by another Member State on the ground that
its holder has,
to a
measure withdrawing or cancelling the driving licence issued by
that Member State, where a temporary ban on obtaining a new
licence in that State, with which that measure is coupled, has
expired before the date of issue of the driving licence issued by the
other Member State.

in the first Member State, been subject

(1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002
OJ 84 of 6.4.2002

(1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002