Case C-108/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Gravenhage by order of that court of 27 January 2005 in Bovemij Verzekeringen N.V. v Benelux-Merkenbureau
Date: 2005-05-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Benelux, interpretation of the law, trade-mark law

C 115/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.5.2005

Do Article 13A(1)(b) and (2) of the Sixth Council Directive
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws
of the Member States relating to turnover taxes allow for the
tax exemption for medical laboratory tests ordered by general
practitioners to be made subject to the conditions specified in
those provisions, even where medical care by such practitioners
is exempt from taxation in any event?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof
te 's-Gravenhage by order of that court of 27 January
2005 in Bovemij Verzekeringen N.V. v Benelux-Merken-
bureau

(Case C-108/05)

(2005/C 115/22)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Gerechtshof te 's-Grave-
nhage (Netherlands) of 27 January 2005, received at the Court
Registry on 4 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between Bovemij Verzekeringen N.V. and Benelux-
Merkenbureau on the following questions:

(1) [Omissis: question submitted to the Benelux Court of

Justice]

(2 Must Article 3(3) of

the Directive (1) be interpreted as
meaning that in order to acquire distinctive character (in
the present case through a Benelux trade mark) as a result
of use, as referred to in that provision, it is necessary that
the sign be regarded as a trade mark, before the date of
application, by the relevant public throughout the Benelux
territory and,
in Belgium, Netherlands and
Luxembourg?

therefore,

If the answer to question 2 is in the negative:

(3) Is the condition for registration laid down in Article 3(3) of
the Directive satisfied, for the purposes of that provision, if
the sign, as result of the use made of it, is regarded as a
trade mark by the relevant section of
the public in a
substantial part of
the Benelux territory and can this
substantial part be, for example, the Netherlands alone?

sign — consisting of one or more words of an official
language in the territory of a Member State (or, as in the
case in point, the Benelux territory) — is it necessary to
take into account the language regions within that terri-
tory?

For registration as a mark, should the other requirements
for registration be satisfied, is it sufficient if/required that
the sign be regarded as a trade mark by the relevant section
of the public in a substantial part of the language region of
the Member State (or, as in the case in point, of
the
Benelux territory)
language is an official
in which that
language?

(1) Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21.12.1988 (OJ 1989, L 40, p. 1).

Action brought on 4 March 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-110/05)

(2005/C 115/23)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 March
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by D. Recchia and F. Amato, acting as Agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. declare that by prohibiting the towing of trailers by motor
vehicles the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 28 EC;

2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs incurred by the

Commission of the European Communities.

Pleas in law and main arguments

(4) When assessing distinctive character acquired through use,
within the meaning of Article 3(3) of the Directive, of a

Under Article 56 of the Codice della strada (Italian highway
code) the towing of trailers by any motor vehicle other than a
tractor unit is prohibited in Italy.