Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2004 in Case C-64/02 P: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), v Erpo Möbelwerk GmbH (Appeal — Community trade mark — Phrase DAS PRINZIP DER BEQUEMLICHKEIT — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
Date: 2004-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, General Court (EU), Germany, action for annulment (EU), interpretation of the law, trade-mark law

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/5

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

3. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.

(First Chamber)

of 7 October 2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 21 October 2004

in Case C-64/02 P: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs), v Erpo Möbelwerk
GmbH (1)

(Appeal — Community trade mark — Phrase DAS PRINZIP
DER BEQUEMLICHKEIT — Absolute ground for refusal —
Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94)

(2004/C 300/08)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-64/02 P: appeal under Article 49 of the Statute of
the Court of Justice, brought on 27 February 2002, between
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl and G. Schneider),
supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Jackson, M. Bethell and M.
Ireland (Agent: P. Ormond, C.
Tappin, assisted by D. Alexander),
the other party to the
proceedings being: Erpo Möbelwerk GmbH (Lawyers: S. von
Petersdorff-Campen and H. von Rohr) — the Court (Second
Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
J.-P. Puissochet, R.
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann,
Judges; M. Poiares
Schintgen and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
Maduro, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21
October 2004, in which it:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

in Case C-103/02: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Italian Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives
75/442/EEC and 91/689/EEC — ‘Quantity of waste’ —
Exemption from permit requirement)

(2004/C 300/09)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Case C-103/02: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: R. Wainwright and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic
(Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by M. Fiorilli) — action under
Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on
20 March 2002 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P.
Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta,
K. Lenaerts and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; Advocate
General: M. Poiares Maduro, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a
judgment on 7 October 2004, in which it:

1. Declares that, by failing to fix, in the Decree of 5 February 1998
relating to the identification of non-hazardous waste subject to
simplified recovery procedures under Articles 31 and 33 of Legis-
lative Decree No 22 of 5 February 1997, maximum quantities of
waste by type of waste which may be recovered under the permit
exemption scheme, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under Articles 10 and 11(1) of Council Directive
75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council
Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991;

2. Declares that, by failing to define precisely the types of waste
relating to technical standards 5.9 and 7.8 of Annex 1 to that
decree, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 11(1) of Directive 75/442, as amended, and Article 3 of
Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazar-
dous waste;

2. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

(Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs;

3. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to bear its own costs.

4. Orders each party to pay its own costs.

(1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.

(1) OJ C 118 of 18.5.2002.