Case C-316/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Domstolen by order of that court of 9 August 2005 in Nokia Corporation v Joacim Wärdell
Date: 2005-10-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, industrial counterfeiting, interpretation of the law, legal process, penalty

C 257/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.10.2005

1. Where Directive 1999/70/EC (1) provides that

fixed-term
workers are not be treated in a less favourable manner than
comparable permanent workers, does this also refer to
remuneration?

If the answer is affirmative:

2. Is the fact that Article 44 of Law 55/2003 of 16 December
2003 of the Framework Statute for Statutory Workers in
the Health Service provides that temporary workers are not
entitled to the length of service allowance recognised for
permanent workers an adequate and objective reason?

3. Are the agreements concluded between the staff unions and
the administration adequate and objective reasons for not
recognising the length of service allowance for temporary
workers?

(1) Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the
framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC,
UNICE and CEEP (OJ L 175 , of 10/07/1999 p. 43).

which finds that the defendant has infringed a Community
trade mark may, even if
there is no such ground for
refraining from issuing a prohibition of further infringement
as contemplated in Question 1, refrain from issuing such a
prohibition on the grounds that it is clear that a further
infringement is covered by a statutory general prohibition
of infringement under national law and that a penalty may
be imposed on the defendant if he commits a further infrin-
gement intentionally or with gross negligence?

3. If the answer to Question 2 is no, must specific measures,
by which a prohibition is for example coupled with a
penalty, be taken in such a case to ensure that the prohibi-
tion is complied with, even where it is clear that a further
infringement is covered by a statutory general prohibition
of infringement under national law and that a penalty may
be imposed on the defendant if he commits a further infrin-
gement intentionally or with gross negligence?

4. If the answer to Question 3 is yes, does this apply even
where the conditions for adopting such a specific measure
in the case of a corresponding infringement of a national
trade mark would not be regarded as fulfilled?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta
Domstolen by order of that court of 9 August 2005 in
Nokia Corporation v Joacim Wärdell

Action brought on 17 August 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
Germany

(Case C-316/05)

(2005/C 257/07)

(Language of the case: Swedish)

(Case C-318/05)

(2005/C 257/08)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of
the Högsta Domstolen
(Supreme Court) of 9 August 2005, received at the Court
Registry on 16 August 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between Nokia Corporation and Joacim Wärdell
on the following questions:

1. Is the condition relating to special reasons in the first
sentence of Article 98(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No
40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark
to be interpreted as meaning that a court which finds that
the defendant has infringed a Community trade mark may,
irrespective of the other circumstances, refrain from issuing
a specific prohibition of further infringement if the court
considers that
is not
obvious or is otherwise merely limited?

infringement

the risk of

further

2. Is the condition relating to special reasons in the first
sentence of Article 98(1) of the Regulation on the Com-
munity trade mark to be interpreted as meaning that a court

An action against
the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 17 August 2005 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Richard Lyal and Kilian Gross,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the
Court should:

1. declare that, by excluding school fees in respect of education
abroad without exception from the tax-deductible special
expenses provided for in Article 10(1)(9) of the Einkommen-
steuergesetzes (EStG)
the
Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions under Articles 18, 39, 43 and 49 EC;

(German Law on income tax),

2. order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.