Case C-145/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (Belgium) by judgment of that court of 17 March 2005 in Levi Strauss & Co v Casucci Spa
Date: 2005-05-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, clothing, clothing industry, interpretation of the law, trade-mark law

28.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/17

(c) Given the broad and loose conception of measures
building on the Schengen acquis which the Council
employs in its practice, the mechanism of Article 5 of
the Schengen Protocol, as interpreted by the Council,
would be liable to function in a way that violates the
principle of legal certainty and the fundamental princi-
ples governing enhanced cooperation.

3. In the alternative, the United Kingdom contends that, if the
Council's interpretation of the relationship between Article
5 and Article 4 of the Schengen Protocol were correct, this
would necessarily entail taking a narrow view of the notion
of a measure that builds upon the Schengen acquis within
the meaning of Article 5, as a measure inextricably
connected with the acquis; and the Passports Regulation is
not such a measure.

(1) OJ L 385, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
Cassation (Belgium) by judgment of that court of 17
March 2005 in Levi Strauss & Co v Casucci Spa

(Case C-145/05)

(2005/C 132/31)

(Language of the case: French)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgment of
the Cour de Cassation
(Belgium) of 17 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on
31 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Levi Strauss & Co and Casucci Spa on the following
questions:

1. For the purposes of determining the scope of protection of
a trade mark which has been lawfully acquired on the basis
of its distinctive character, in accordance with Article 5(1)
of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December
1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating
to trade marks (1), must the court take into account the
perception of the public concerned at the time when use
commenced of the trade mark or similar sign which alleg-
edly infringes the trade mark?

2. If not, may the court take into account the perception of
the public concerned at any time after commencement of
the use complained of? Is it entitled in particular to take
into account the perception of the public concerned at the
time it delivers its ruling?

3. Where, in application of the criterion referred to in the first
question,
the trade mark has been
infringed, is it entitled, as a general rule, to order cessation
of the infringing use of the sign?

finds that

the court

4. Can the position be different if the claimant's trade mark
has lost its distinctive character wholly or in part after
commencement of the infringing use, but solely where that
loss is due wholly or in part to an act or omission by the
proprietor of that trade mark?

(1) OJ L 40, 11.02.1989, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel
de Paris by judgment of 23 March 2005 in Harold Price v
Conseil des ventes volontaires de meubles aux enchères
publiques

(Case C-149/05)

(2005/C 132/32)

(Language of the case: French)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgment of the Cour d'appel de Paris of
23 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 4 April
2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
between Harold Price and the Conseil des ventes volontaires de
meubles aux enchères publiques on the following questions:

and

1. Does Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a
second general system for the recognition of professional
education
supplement Directive
89/48/EEC (1) apply to the activity of director of voluntary
sales of chattels by public auction which is governed by
Articles L.321-1 to L.321-3, L.321-8 and L.321-9 of the
Code de commerce?

training

to

2. If so, can the host Member State avail itself of the deroga-
tion in the second indent of Article 4(1)(b) as provided for
by the sixth (2) indent of Article 4(1)(b) of the Directive?

(1) OJ L 209 of 24.07.1992, p. 25.
(2) Tr. : Scil. the third indent.