Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  6 October 2005  in Case C-120/04: reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf in Medion AG v Thomson multimedia Sales Germany & Austria GmbH (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 5(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Use of the trade mark by a third party — Composite sign including the name of another party followed by the trade mark)
Date: 2005-11-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: brand name, interpretation of the law, trade mark, trade-mark law

C 296/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.11.2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 6 October 2005

(Second Chamber)

of 13 October 2005

in Case C-120/04: reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf
in Medion AG v
Thomson multimedia Sales Germany & Austria GmbH (1)

in Case C-200/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof, Finanzamt Heidelberg v ISt interna-
tionale Sprach- und Studienreisen GmbH (1)

(Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 5(1)(b) —
Likelihood of confusion — Use of the trade mark by a third
party — Composite sign including the name of another party
followed by the trade mark)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Special scheme for travel agents and
tour operators — Article 26(1) — Scope — Package
comprising travel to the host State and/or the stay in that
State and language tuition — Principal service and ancillary
service — Definition — Directive 90/314/EEC on package
travel, package holidays and package tours)

(2005/C 296/11)

(2005/C 296/12)

(Language of the case: German)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-120/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf
(Germany), made by decision of 17 February 2004, received at
the Court on 5 March 2004,
in the proceedings between
Medion AG and Thomson multimedia Sales Germany &
Austria GmbH — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of
C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann
(Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for
the Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 October 2005, the opera-
tive part of which is as follows:

In Case C-200/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by
decision of 18 March 2004, received at the Court on 5 May
2004, in the proceedings between Finanzamt Heidelberg and
ISt
internationale Sprach- und Studienreisen GmbH — the
Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans,
President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, R. Silva de Lapuerta, P.
Kūris and G. Arestis (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro,
Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 October 2005, the operative
part of which is as follows:

Article 5(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21
December 1988 to approximate the laws of
the Member States
relating to trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that where the
goods or services are identical there may be a likelihood of confusion
on the part of the public where the contested sign is composed by
juxtaposing the company name of another party and a registered
mark which has normal distinctiveness and which, without alone
determining the overall impression conveyed by the composite sign,
still has an independent distinctive role therein.

Article 26 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977
on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis
of assessment, should be interpreted as meaning that it applies to a
trader who offers services such as the ‘High School’ and ‘College’
programmes involving the organisation of language and study trips
abroad and which, in consideration of the payment of an all-inclusive
sum, provides in its own name to its customers a stay abroad of three
to 10 months and buys in services from other taxable persons for that
purpose.

(1) OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.

(1) OJ C 190 of 24.07.2004.