Case C-16/06 P: Appeal brought on  13 January 2006  by Les Éditions Albert René SARL against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on  27 October 2005  in Case T-336/03: Les Éditions Albert Réné SARL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2006-06-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, General Court (EU), appeal, publisher, trade-mark law

17.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/21

Re:

Appeal against the Order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber) of 6 September 2004 in Case T-213/02 SNF v
Commission, declaring inadmissible an application for the partial
annulment
Twenty-sixth Commission Directive
2002/34/EC of 15 April 2002 adapting to technical progress
Annexes II, III and VII to Council Directive 76/748/EEC on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
cosmetic products (OJ 2002 L 102, p. 19)

the

of

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. SNF SA is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 19, 22.1.2005.

Appeal brought on 13 January 2006 by Les Éditions
Albert René SARL against the judgment of the Court of
First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 October
2005 in Case T-336/03: Les Éditions Albert Réné SARL v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs)

(Case C-16/06 P)

(2006/C 143/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Les Éditions Albert René SARL (represented by: J.
Pagenberg, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Orange A/S

Appeal brought on 9 May 2005 by Carlos Correia de
Matos against the order of the Court of First Instance
(First Chamber) of 23 February 2005 in Case T-454/04
Carlos Correia de Matos v Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Case C-200/05 P)

(2006/C 143/37)

Language of the case: Portuguese

— annul the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27

October 2005 in Case T-336/03;

— annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14

July 2003 in Case R 559/2002-4;

— reject

the application for

registration of MOBILIX Nr.
671396 for all the goods and services for which it has bee
applied;

Parties

— order the OHIM to pay the costs in relation to the proceed-
ings before the Court of First Instance and before the Court
of Justice.

Appellant: Carlos Correia de Matos (represented by: Carlos
Correia de Matos)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities

By order of 16 March 2006 the Court of Justice held that the
appeal was inadmissible.

The Appellant claims that the Judgment of the Court of First
Instance violates Article 63 CTMR and general principles of
Community administrative and procedural
it
concluded, contrary to the contested Board decision, that the
conflicting marks, OBELIX and MOBILIX, are not similar,
thereby taking a decision to the detriment of the Appellant on
an issue that had not been properly raised, and thereby
exceeding the competence of the Court of First Instance when
reviewing decisions of OHIM Boards of Appeal in a case like
the present one.

law in that

C 143/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.6.2006

The Appellant further claims that the Court of First Instance,
even if that Court was entitled to decide the issue of similarity
of the conflicting marks to the detriment of the Appellant,
violated Article 8(1)(b) CTMR in that it applied erroneous legal
criteria in determining that the conflicting marks, OBELIX and
MOBILIX, are not similar, as well as in determining that some
of the conflicting goods and services are similar, while others
are not.

The Appellant further claims that the Court of First Instance
violated Article 74 CTMR in refusing to accept
the
OBELIX mark was well-known and highly distinctive.

that

The Appellant further claims that the Court of First Instance
violated Article 63 CTMR and its own Rules of Procedure in
that it declared inadmissible the Appellants claim before that
Court to annul the contested Board decision on the grounds
that it had not applied Article 8(5) CTMR to the case at hand.

The Appellant further claims that the Court of First Instance
violated articles 44 and 48 of its own Rules of Procedure in
that it declared inadmissible the claim, presented in the alterna-
tive at the hearing, that the Court remand the case to the Board
in order to allow the Appellant to establish the reputation of
the mark OBELIX.

The Appellant finally claims that the Court of First Instance
violated Article 63 CTMR and its own Rules of Procedure, in
particular Article 135(4) thereof, in that it declared inadmissible
introduced before the Court of First
certain documents
Instance.

Questions referred

1. Is Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23
July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on
the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission
Regulation No 3009/95, to be interpreted as meaning that
combined network/modem cards such as those at issue in
the main proceedings are to be subject, after 1 January
1996, to customs duty as data-processing machines under
heading 8471 or as telecommunication apparatus under
heading 8517?

In that connection the Court of Justice of the European
Communities is asked to rule on whether the concept of
‘specific function’ within the meaning of Note 5(E)
to
Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature, as amended by
is to be interpreted as meaning
Regulation No 3009/95,
that classification is to be under a heading other than 8471
when a WAN function is present, or whether there is to be
a classification under a heading other than 8471 only if the
WAN function can operate independently of an automatic
data-processing machine.

2. If the Court of Justice of the European Communities should
find that
the WAN function in the combined network/
modem card is a specific function, the Court is asked to rule
on whether it is relevant for the customs classification that
the product's principal function can be deemed to be the
LAN function.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Land-
sret lodged on 16 March 2006 — Olicom A/S v Skattemi-
nisteriet

(Case C-142/06)

(2006/C 143/39)

Language of the case: Danish

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione
tributaria di secondo grado di Trento lodged on 17 March
Italiana Srl v Agenzia Dogane Ufficio
2006 — Fendt

Dogane di Trento

(Case C-145/06)

(2006/C 143/40)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Østre Landsret (Eastern Regional Court); (Denmark)

Referring court

Commissione tributaria di secondo grado di Trento

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Olicom A/S

Applicant: Fendt Italiana Srl

Defendant: Skatteministeriet (Danish Taxation Ministry)

Defendant: Agenzia Dogane Ufficio Dogane di Trento