Case C-206/04 P: Appeal brought on 10 May 2004 by Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment delivered on 3 March 2004 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-355/02 between Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being Zirh International Corp.
Date: 2004-07-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), intellectual property, trade-mark law

C 179/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.7.2004

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Roma (District Court, Rome) by order of that court of 7
April 2004 in the case of Stefano Macrino and Claudia
Capodarte against Roberto Meloni

also the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
defendant and appellee of 1 October 2002 (Case No. R-657/
2001-2);

2. order the defendant and appellee to pay the costs in total.

(Case C-202/04)

(2004/C 179/11)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Tribunale di Roma (District
Court, Rome) (Italy) of 7 April 2004, received at the Court
Registry on 6 May 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Stefano Macrino and Claudia Capodarte against Roberto Meloni
on the following question:

Do Articles 5 and 85 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 10
and 81 EC) preclude a Member State from adopting a law
or regulation which approves, on the basis of a draft
produced by a professional body of members of the Bar, a
tariff fixing minimum and maximum fees for members of
the profession in respect of services rendered in connection
with activities (so-called non-court work)
that are not
reserved to members of the Bar but may be performed by
anyone?

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The appellant submits that, given the similarity of the goods
and services in question and the similarity in sound of the
opposed marks, the Court of First Instance should have come
to the conclusion that
there is a likelihood of confusion
between the opposed marks, pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of
Regulation No 40/94 (2).

therefore maintains that

The appellant
the Court of First
Instance has misconstrued the requirements of Article 8(1)(b)
and that the contested judgment should be annulled.

(1) OJ C 70, 22.03.2003, p. 23.
(2) Of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11,

14.01.1994, p. 1), as amended.

Appeal brought on 10 May 2004 by Mülhens GmbH & Co.
KG against the judgment delivered on 3 March 2004 by
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in case T-355/02 between Mülhens
GmbH & Co. KG and the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the
other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) being Zirh International Corp.

(Case C-206/04 P)

(2004/C 179/12)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 3 March 2004 by
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities in case T-355/02 (1) between Mülhens
GmbH & Co. KG and the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other
party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) being Zirh International Corp., was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
10 May 2004 by Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG, established in
represented by T. Schulte-Beckhausen,
Cologne (Germany),
lawyer.

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the decision of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities of 3 March 2004 (Case T-355/02) and

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
Tributaria Provinciale (Provincial Tax Court), Novara
(Italy), by order of that court of 26 April 2004, in the case
of Paolo Vergani against Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Arona
(Revenue Agency, Arona Office)

(Case C-207/04)

(2004/C 179/13)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Commissione Tributaria
Provinciale (Provincial Tax Court), Novara (Italy), of 26 April
2004, received at the Court Registry on 10 May 2004, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Paolo Vergani against Agenzia
Entrate Ufficio Arona (Revenue Agency, Arona Office) on the
following question:

Does Article 17(4a) of Decree No 917/86 of the President of
the Republic infringe, conflict with or in any event create
conditions of unequal treatment as between men and women
prohibited by Article 141 of
the European Union Treaty
(previously Article 119) in so far as, in like circumstances, it
grants the advantage of
taxation of voluntary redundancy
incentives and of sums paid in connection with termination of
employment relationships at a rate reduced to one-half (50 %)
for workers who have passed the age of 50 years in the case of
women and the age of 55 years in the case of men (1)?

(1) OJ L 39, 14 February 1976, p. 40.