Case C-259/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  30 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division)) — Elizabeth Florence Emanuel v Continental Shelf 128 Ltd, (Trade marks of such a nature as to deceive the public or liable to mislead the public as to the nature, quality or geographical origin of a product — Trade mark assigned by the proprietor together with the undertaking producing the goods to which the mark relates — Directive 89/104/EEC)
Date: 2006-06-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: brand name, interpretation of the law, patents licence, trade mark, trade-mark law

C 143/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.6.2006

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 30 March 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of
Justice (Queen's Bench Division)) — Elizabeth Florence
Emanuel v Continental Shelf 128 Ltd,

that that mark would mislead the public, within the meaning of
Article 12(2)(b) of Directive 89/104,
in particular where the
goodwill associated with that mark has been assigned together
with the business making the goods to which the mark relates.

(Case C-259/04) (1)

(1) OJ C 217 28.8.2004.

(Trade marks of such a nature as to deceive the public or
liable to mislead the public as to the nature, quality or
geographical origin of a product — Trade mark assigned by
the proprietor together with the undertaking producing the
goods to which the mark relates — Directive 89/104/EEC)

(2006/C 143/18)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant(s): Elizabeth Florence Emanuel

Defendant(s): Continental Shelf 128 Ltd,

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice
(Queen's Bench Division) — Interpretation of Articles 3(1)(g)
and 12(2)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21
December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States
relating to trade marks — Trade marks which are of such a
nature as to deceive the public or to mislead it as to the nature,
quality or geographical origin of a product — Trade mark
together with the undertaking
assigned by the proprietor
producing the goods to which that mark relates — ‘Elizabeth
Emanuel’ wedding dresses

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 April 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Hamburg) — ED & F Man Sugar Ltd v Hauptzollamt
Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-274/04) (1)

(Agriculture — Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 — Export
refunds — Sanction applied following a decision to recover a
refund that has become final — Possibility of re-examining
the decision imposing a sanction)

(2006/C 143/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ED & F Man Sugar Ltd

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Operative part of the judgment

Re:

1. A trade mark corresponding to the name of the designer and first
manufacturer of the goods bearing that mark may not, by reason
of that particular feature alone, be refused registration on the
ground that it would deceive the public, within the meaning of
Article 3(1)(g) of Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December
1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to
trade marks, in particular where the goodwill associated with that
trade mark, previously registered in a different graphic form, has
been assigned together with the business making the goods to
which the mark relates.

2. A trade mark corresponding to the name of the designer and first
manufacturer of the goods bearing that mark is not, by reason of
that particular feature alone, liable to revocation on the ground

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg
(Finance Court) Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 11(1) and
(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27
November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the
application of the system of export refunds on agricultural
products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1), as amended by Commission
Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L
310, p. 57) — Sanctions for requesting a refund in excess of
that applicable — Whether national authorities or courts may
re-examine, in the context of an action brought by an exporter
against a decision imposing a sanction on him, the final deci-
sion ordering repayment of amounts wrongly received —
Misinterpretation of Community law