Case C-239/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal, Brussels by order of that court of 30 May 2005 in BVBA Management Training en Consultancy v Benelux-Merkenbureau
Date: 2005-09-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, interpretation of the law, operation of the Institutions, powers of the institutions (EU), trade-mark law

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/25

By order of 3 March 2005, the Court of Justice of the European
Communities
(Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and
ordered Mr Dipace to bear his own costs.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of
Appeal, Brussels by order of that court of 30 May 2005 in
BVBA Management Training en Consultancy v Benelux-
Merkenbureau

(Case C-239/05)

(2005/C 217/50)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of The Court of Appeal, Brussels
of 30 May 2005, received at the Court Registry on 3 June
2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
BVBA Management Training en Consultancy and Benelux-
Merkenbureau on the following questions:

1. Is the trade mark authority required, after its examination of
all relevant facts and circumstances concerning an absolute
ground of refusal, to state in its provisional and in its defini-
tive decision on the application its conclusion in regard to
each of the goods and services separately in respect of
which trade mark protection is sought?

2. May the relevant facts and circumstances to be taken into
account by the adjudicating authority in the event of an
appeal against the decision of the trade mark authority be
different as a result of a lapse of time between the two dates
on which the decisions are made or must the adjudicating
authority only take account of such facts and circumstances
as were available at
the moment when the trade mark
authority made its decision?

3. Does the interpretation by the Court of Justice in the Post-
kantoor (1) judgment preclude national legislation in regard
to the competence of the adjudicating authority from being
construed as meaning that that authority is prevented from
taking account of any alteration in the relevant facts and
circumstances or from ruling on the distinctive character of
the mark for each of the goods and services in themselves?

(1) Case C-363/99, Koninklijke KPN Nederland, dated 12.02.2004.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden by order of that court of 22 April 2005
in case of Twoh International BV v Inspecteur van de
Belastingdienst

(Case C-184/05)

(2005/C 217/49)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
(Netherlands) of 22 April 2005, received at the Court Registry
on 25 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between Twoh International BV and Inspecteur van de Belas-
tingdienst on the following question:

Is Article 28c A (a) of the Sixth Directive (1) — in conjunction
with the mutual assistance directive (2) and the Regulation (3) —
to be interpreted as meaning that, if no relevant information
has been provided voluntarily by the Member State of arrival,
the Member State of the dispatch or transport of the goods
must request
the alleged Member State of arrival of those
goods to provide information and must take the results of that
request
the
dispatch or transport of the goods?

into account when examining the evidence of

(1) Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (OJ L 145, p. 1).
(2) Council Directive 77/799/EEC of 19 December 1977 (OJ L 336, p.

15), as amended by Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ L 76, p. 1).

(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 218/92 of 27 January 1992 (OJ L 24,

p. 1).