Case C-482/04 P: Order of the Court of  21 November 2005  — SNF SA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Directive on cosmetic products — Restrictions on the use of polyacrylamides in the composition of cosmetic products)
Date: 2006-06-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), chemical product, cosmetic product, infringement of EU law, public health

C 143/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.6.2006

Operative part of the judgment

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: M. S.
Schreiner, Agent)

1. Article 5(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21
December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States
relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that, in
order to determine the scope of protection of a trade mark which
has been lawfully acquired on the basis of its distinctive character,
the national court must take into account the perception of the
public concerned at the time when the sign, the use of which
infringes that trade mark, began to be used.

2. Where the competent national court finds that the sign in question
constituted an infringement of the mark at the time when the sign
began to be used, it is for that court to take such measures as
prove to be the most appropriate in the light of the circumstances
of the case in order to safeguard the proprietor's rights deriving
from Article 5(1) of Directive 89/104; such measures may
include, in particular, an order to cease use of that sign.

3. It is not appropriate to order cessation of the use of the sign in
question if it has been established that the trade mark has lost its
distinctive character,
in consequence of acts or inactivity of the
proprietor, so that it has become a common name within the
meaning of Article 12(2) of Directive 89/104, and the trade
mark has therefore been revoked.

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringe-
ments of Articles 1 and 5 of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of
19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on
certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual
property (OJ 1992 L 346, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to apply the provisions on public lending
in Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19
right provided for
November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain
rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Articles 1 and 5 of that directive;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 132, 28.5.2005.

(1) OJ C 171 of 9.7.2005

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 April 2006
— Commission of the European Communities v Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg

Order of the Court of 21 November 2005 — SNF SA v
Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-180/05) (1)

(Case C-482/04 P) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Direc-
tive 92/100/EEC — Rights related to copyright in the field of
intellectual property — Public lending right — Failure to
transpose within the period prescribed)

(2006/C 143/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

(Appeal — Directive on cosmetic products — Restrictions on
the use of polyacrylamides in the composition of cosmetic
products)

(2006/C 143/36)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SNF SA (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C.
Mereu, lawyers)

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: W. Wils, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities (represented by: X. Lewis and A. Caeiros, acting
as Agents)

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