Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 November 2004 in Case C-245/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus): Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation — Articles 2(1), 16(1) and 70 of the TRIPs Agreement — Trade marks — Scope of the proprietor's exclusive right to the trade mark — Alleged use of the sign as a trade name)
Date: 2005-01-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: TRIPS, brand name, interpretation of the law, national law, trade agreement, trade mark, trade-mark law

8.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/5

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 11 November 2004

(Grand Chamber)

of 16 November 2004

in Case C-216/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Österreichischer Zuchtver-
band für Ponys, Kleinpferde und Spezialrassen v Burgen-
ländische Landesregierung (1)

(Free movement of goods — Intra-Community trade in
equidæ — Procedure for the approval or recognition of orga-
nisations and associations which maintain or establish stud-
books for registered equidæ — Article 2(2) of Decision
92/353/EEC)

in Case C-245/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Korkein oikeus): Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budějovický
Budvar, národní podnik (1)

(Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation —
Articles 2(1), 16(1) and 70 of the TRIPs Agreement —
Trade marks — Scope of the proprietor's exclusive right to
the trade mark — Alleged use of the sign as a trade name)

(2005/C 6/07)

(Language of the case: German)

(2005/C 6/08)

(Language of the case: Finnish)

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

In Case C-216/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under
(Austria),
Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof
made by decision of 23 May 2002, received at the Court on 12
June 2002, in the proceedings between Österreichischer Zucht-
verband für Ponys, Kleinpferde und Spezialrassen and Burgen-
ländische Landesregierung, and Österreichischer Shetlandpony-
(First Chamber),
zuchtverband (intervener) – the Court
composed of: P.
Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas
(Rapporteur) and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
Colomer, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-
trator, has given a judgment on 11 November 2004, in which
it has ruled:

1. On a proper construction of the first indent of Article 2(2) of
Commission Decision 92/353/EEC of 11 June 1992 laying
down the criteria for the approval or recognition of organisations
and associations which maintain or establish stud-books for regis-
tered equidæ, where one or more of the circumstances mentioned in
that provision is or are proved to exist, organisations or associa-
tions already officially recognised or approved in respect of a breed
of equidæ are not entitled to demand of the competent authorities
that the latter should refuse to recognise or approve a new associa-
tion or organisation maintaining or establishing stud-books for
the same breed.

2. It

is not contrary to Community law for the legislation of a
Member State to deprive associations and organisations already in
existence, which have submitted observations opposing the recogni-
tion of a new association or organisation, of a judicial means of
obtaining redress challenging the competent national authorities'
decision to grant recognition.

(1) OJ C 191 of 10.8.2002.

In Case C-245/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Korkein oikeus (Finland), made by
decision of 3 July 2002, received at the Court on 5 July 2002,
in the proceedings between Anheuser-Busch Inc and Budějo-
vický Budvar, národní podnik - the Court (Grand Chamber),
composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmer-
mans (Rapporteur), A. Rosas and R. Silva de Lapuerta (Presi-
dents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S.
von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and K. Schiemann, Judges; A.
Tizzano, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16
November 2004, in which it has ruled:

1. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPs Agreement), as set out in Annex 1 C to the Agree-
ment establishing the World Trade Organisation, approved on
behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its
competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December
1994, applies in the event of a conflict between a trade mark and
a sign alleged to infringe that trade mark where that conflict arose
before the date of application of
the TRIPs Agreement but
continued beyond that date.

2. A trade name may constitute a sign within the meaning of the
first sentence of Article 16(1) of the Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement). That
provision is intended to confer on the proprietor of a trade mark
the exclusive right to prevent a third party from using such a sign
if the use in question prejudices or is liable to prejudice the func-
tions of the trade mark, in particular its essential function of guar-
anteeing to consumers the origin of the goods.

The exceptions provided for in Article 17 of the Agreement on
Trade-Related Aspects of
(TRIPs
Agreement) are intended, inter alia, to enable a third party to use
a sign which is identical or similar to a trade mark to indicate his
trade name, provided that such use is in accordance with honest
practices in industrial or commercial matters.

Intellectual Property Rights

C 6/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.1.2005

3. A trade name which is not registered or established by use in the
Member State in which the trade mark is registered and in which
protection against the trade name in question is sought may be
regarded as an existing prior right within the meaning of the third
sentence of Article 16(1) of
the Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement) if the
proprietor of
falling within the
substantive and temporal scope of that agreement which arose
prior to the trade mark with which it is alleged to conflict and
which entitles him to use a sign identical or similar to that trade
mark.

the trade name has a right

1. Annuls the decision contained in the letter of the Director-General
of the Directorate-General for Agriculture of the Commission of
the European Communities of 18 April 2002 concerning a reduc-
tion in advances extended in the 2002 financial year in accord-
ance with Article 39(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No
1750/1999 of 23 July 1999 laying down detailed rules for the
application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on
support
from the European Agricultural
recently
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), as most
amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1763/2001 of 6
September 2001;

for rural development

(1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the

costs.

(1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 11 November 2004

in Case C-249/02: Portuguese Republic v Commission of
the European Communities (1)

(Agriculture — Common agricultural policy — Financing by
the EAGGF — Actual expenditure of a Member State which
is less than the forecast expenditure notified by it to the
Commission — Power of the Commission to reduce sums
paid as advances — Letter from a Director-General of the
Commission informing the Member State of that reduction
— Act having binding legal effects)

(2005/C 6/09)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 18 November 2004

in Case C-284/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesarbeitsgericht): Land Brandenburg v Ursula
Sass (1)

(Social policy — Male and female workers — Article 141 EC
— Equal pay — Directive 76/207/EEC — Equal treatment
— Maternity leave — Passage to a higher salary grade —
Failure to take account of the whole of a period of maternity
leave taken under the legislation of the former German
Democratic Republic)

(2005/C 6/10)

(Language of the case: German)

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

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

In Case C-249/02: action for annulment under Article 230 EC,
brought on 1 July 2002, between Portuguese Republic (Agent:
L. Fernandes, assisted by C. Botelho Moniz and E. Maia Cadete)
and Commission of
the European Communities (Agent: L.
Visaggio, assisted by N. Castro Marques) — the Court (Second
Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the
Chamber,
(Rapporteur),
J.-P.
R. Schintgen and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
Colomer, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11
November 2004, in which it:

C. Gulmann,

Puissochet

In Case C-284/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany), made
by decision of 21 March 2002, received at the Court on 2
August 2002, in the proceedings between Land Brandenburg
and Ursula Sass — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P.
Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, (Rapporteur), R. Silva
de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and S. von Bahr, Judges; L. A. Geel-
hoed, Advocate General; F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 November 2004, in
which it has ruled: