Case C-416/04 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  11 May 2006  — The Sunrider Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Articles 8(1)(b), 15(3) and 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood of confusion — Application for Community word mark VITAFRUIT — Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark VITAFRUT — Genuine use of the earlier trade mark — Proof of consent of the proprietor for the use of the earlier trade mark — Similarity of goods)
Date: 2006-07-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), aerated drink, appeal, beer, infringement of EU law, interpretation of the law, non-alcoholic beverage, trade-mark law

C 165/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.7.2006

or services has been made and who knew, or had reasonable
grounds to suspect,
the value added tax
that some or all of
payable in respect of that supply, or of any previous or subsequent
supply, would go unpaid, may be made jointly and severally liable,
with the person who is liable, for payment of that tax. Such legis-
lation must, however, comply with the general principles of law
which form part of the Community legal order and which include,
in particular, the principles of legal certainty and proportionality.

is

2. Article 22(8) of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Direc-
tives 2000/65 and 2001/115,
to be interpreted as not
allowing a Member State to enact either legislation, such as that
in issue in the main proceedings, which provides that a taxable
person, to whom a supply of goods or services has been made and
who knew, or had reasonable grounds to suspect, that some or all
of the value added tax payable in respect of that supply, or of any
previous or subsequent supply, would go unpaid, may be made
for
jointly and severally liable, with the person who is liable,
payment of that tax, or legislation which provides that a taxable
person may be required to provide security for the payment of that
tax which is or could become payable by the taxable person to
whom he supplies those goods or services or by whom they are
supplied to him.

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S.
Laitinen and A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agents,)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(Second Chamber) of 8 July 2004 in Case T-203/02 Sunrider v
OHIM dismissing an action for annulment brought by the
applicant for registration of the word mark ‘VITAFRUIT’ for
products in classes 5, 29 and 32 against the decision of the
First Board of Appeal of The Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (OHIM) of 8 April 2002 in Case R 1046/2000-
1 dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Opposition
Division refusing in part to register that mark in the opposition
proceedings brought by the proprietor of the national word
mark ‘VITAFRUT’ for certain products in classes 30 and 32

Operative part of the judgment

By contrast, that provision does not preclude a national measure
which imposes on any person who is, pursuant to a national
measure adopted on the basis of Article 21(3) of Sixth Directive
77/388, jointly and severally liable for payment of value added
tax, a requirement to provide security for the payment of that tax
which is due.

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

(1) OJ C 273, 16.11.2004.

2. Orders The Sunrider Corp. to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 300, 04.12.2004.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 May 2006 —
The Sunrider Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-416/04 P) (1)

(Appeal — Community trade mark — Articles 8(1)(b), 15(3)
and 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood
of confusion — Application for Community word mark
VITAFRUIT — Opposition by the proprietor of the national
word mark VITAFRUT — Genuine use of the earlier trade
mark — Proof of consent of the proprietor for the use of the
earlier trade mark — Similarity of goods)

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesger-
ichtshof (Germany)) — Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology

(Case C-431/04) (1)

(Patent law — Medicinal products — Regulation (EEC) No
1768/92 — Supplementary protection certificate for medic-
inal products — Concept of ‘combination of active ingredi-
ents’)

(2006/C 165/13)

Language of the case: English

(2006/C 165/14)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Referring court

Appellant: The Sunrider Corp. (represented by: A. Kockläuner,
Rechtsanwalt)

Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)