Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2004 in Case C-447/02 P: KWS Saat AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Colour per se — Orange colour)
Date: 2004-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), designs and models, trade-mark law

C 300/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.12.2004

Article 43 EC precludes legislation of a Member State which prohibits
a credit institution which is a subsidiary of a company from another
Member State from remunerating sight accounts in euros opened by
residents of the former Member State.

(1) OJ C 19 du 25.1.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 19 October 2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 21 October 2004

in Case C-447/02 P: KWS Saat AG v Office for Harmonisa-
tion in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(OHIM) (1)

(Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No
40/94 — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive char-
acter — Colour per se — Orange colour)

(2004/C 300/31)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-447/02 P: appeal under Article 49 of the EC Statute
of the Court of Justice, lodged on 11 December 2002 by KWS
Saat AG, established in Einbeck (Germany)
(represented by
C. Rohnke), the other party to the proceedings being: Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: D. Schennen and G. Schneider) —
of:
the
C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann,
J.-P. Puissochet, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rappor-
teur),
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arza-
mendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 21 October 2004, in which it:

Chamber),

composed

(Second

Court

1. dismisses the appeal;

2. orders KWS Saat AG to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 55 du 8.3.2003.

in Case C-472/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles): Siomab SA v Institut brux-
ellois pour la gestion de l'environnement (1)

(Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on
shipments of waste — Competence of
the authority of
dispatch to verify the classification of the purpose of a ship-
ment (recovery or disposal) and to object to a shipment based
on an incorrect classification — Objection procedure)

(2004/C 300/32)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-472/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Belgium),
made by decision of 20 December 2002, received at the Court
on 27 December 2002, in the proceedings between Siomab SA
and Institut bruxellois pour la gestion de l'environnement —
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Silva de Lapuerta,
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, (Rapporteur) and S.
von Bahr,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 19 October 2004, in which it has ruled:

is

Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the
supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of
the European Community, as amended by Commission Decision
98/368/EC of 18 May 1998 and Commission Decision
1999/816/EC of 24 November 1999,
to be interpreted as
meaning that, where a Member State has recourse, under Article 6(8)
of that regulation, to the specific procedure whereby the competent
authority of dispatch transmits the consignment note for a shipment
of waste for recovery, that authority,
if it considers it necessary to
object to the shipment on the ground that it has been incorrectly clas-
sified by the notifier, may not reclassify the shipment on its own
initiative and is required to transmit
to the other
competent authorities and the consignee. It is then for that authority
to inform the notifier and the other competent authorities concerned of
its objection by any appropriate means before the end of the period
laid down in Article 7(2) of the Regulation at the latest.

that document

(1) OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.