Case C-142/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret lodged on  16 March 2006  — Olicom A/S v Skatteministeriet
Date: 2006-06-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, expansion card, interpretation of the law, modem, telecommunications equipment

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