Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  12 January 2006  in Case C-361/04 P: Claude Ruiz-Picasso, Paloma Ruiz-Picasso, Maya Widmaier-Picasso, Marina Ruiz-Picasso, Bernard Ruiz-Picasso v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood of confusion — Word mark PICARO — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark PICASSO)
Date: 2006-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), appeal, motor car, trade-mark law

C 60/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.3.2006

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 12 January 2006

(Third Chamber)

of 12 January 2006

in Case C-361/04 P: Claude Ruiz-Picasso, Paloma Ruiz-
Picasso, Maya Widmaier-Picasso, Marina Ruiz-Picasso,
Bernard Ruiz-Picasso v Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

in Case C-504/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin in Agrarproduktion
Landrat
Landkreises Bad
Stabelow GmbH v
Doberan (1)

des

(Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 8(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood of confusion —
Word mark PICARO — Opposition by the proprietor of the
Community word mark PICASSO)

(Animal health — Prevention, control and eradication of
spongiform encephalopathies —
certain

transmissible

Slaughter of birth cohorts — Proportionality)

(2006/C 60/15)

(Language of the case: German)

(2006/C 60/16)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-361/04 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of
the Court of Justice lodged on 18 August 2004, by Claude
Ruiz-Picasso, residing in Paris (France), Paloma Ruiz-Picasso,
residing in London (United Kingdom), Maya Widmaier-Picasso,
residing in Paris, Marina Ruiz-Picasso, residing in Geneva (Swit-
zerland), Bernard Ruiz-Picasso, residing in Paris, (represented by
C. Gielen, advocaat), the other parties to the proceedings being
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: G. Schneider and A. von
Mühlendahl), defendant at first instance, and DaimlerChrysler
AG (represented by S. Völker, Rechtsanwalt), intervener at first
instance — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann,
the Chamber, K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), N.
President of
Colneric, K. Lenaerts and E.
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
Colomer, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the
Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 January 2006, in which it:

Juhász,

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Mr Claude Ruiz-Picasso, Mrs Paloma Ruiz-Picasso, Mrs
Maya Widmaier-Picasso, Mrs Marina Ruiz-Picasso and Mr
Bernard Ruiz-Picasso to pay the costs.

In Case C-504/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgericht
Schwerin
(Germany), made by decision of 9 January 2004, received at
the Court on 8 December 2004, in the proceedings Agrarpro-
duktion Stabelow GmbH v Landrat des Landkreises Bad
Doberan — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of M.A.
Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský,
A. La Pergola, A. Borg Barthet and A.Ó Caoimh,
Judges;
M.Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; M.B. Fülöp, Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 January 2006,
in which it ruled as follows:

Examination of
revealed anything
the question referred has not
capable of affecting, in the light of the principle of proportionality, the
validity of Article 13(1), first sentence, (c), of Regulation (EC) No
999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22
May 2001 laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradica-
tion of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, as amended
by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1326/2001 of 29 June 2001
laying down transitional measures to permit the changeover to Regu-
lation No 999/2001 and amending Annexes VII and XI to that
regulation, in conjunction with Annex VII(2)(a) and the third indent
of Annex VII(1)(a) to that regulation.

(1) OJ 262, 23.10.2004.

(1) OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.