Case C-196/06 P: Appeal brought on 26 April 2006 by Alecansan SL against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2006 in Case T-202/03: Alecansan SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM)
Date: 2006-08-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), computer equipment, trade-mark law

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/7

Operative part of the judgment

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
ensure the complete transposition of Directive 2001/19/EC of the
the Council of 14 May 2001
European Parliament and of
amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the
general system for the recognition of professional qualifications
and
77/453/EEC,
78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC,
85/432/EEC,
80/154/EEC,
85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse
responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon,
midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor, the Federal Republic of
Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

80/155/EEC,

85/384/EEC,

77/452/EEC,

Directives

Council

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 205, 20.08.2005.

Appeal brought on 26 April 2006 by Alecansan SL against
Instance (First
the judgment of
Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2006 in Case T-202/03:
Alecansan SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM)

the Court of First

(Case C-196/06 P)

(2006/C 190/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Alecansan SL (represented by: P. Merino Baylos and
A. Velázquez Ibáñez, abogados)

found that

The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in
its interpretation of article 8.1.b) of Regulations No 40/94 (1)
when it
there was no likelihood of confusion
between the two marks on the grounds that, despite the high
degree of similarity from a phonetic and a visual point of view,
the goods and services of the trade mark applied for are not
similar to the services covered by the appellant's mark. The
appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance failed to
take account of several important factors when determining the
existence of the likelihood of confusion.

(1) OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p.1

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger
Finanzsenat Salzburg-Aigen (Austria)
lodged on 8 May
2006 — Schwaninger Martin, Viehhandel — Viehexport v
Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen

(Case C-207/06)

(2006/C 190/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Salzburg-Aigen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Martin Schwaninger, Viehhandel — Viehexport

Defendant: Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market, CompUSA Management Co.

Questions referred

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

the Court of First

the First Chamber of

— annul the judgment of 7 February 2006 (Case T-2002/03)
of
Instance
dismissing the action for annulment filed against the Reso-
lution dated 24 March 2003 of the First Appeal Chamber
of the Office for Harmonisation of the Internal Market
(OHIM) in case R-711/2002-1, dismissing the opposition
filed by Alecansan SL against community trade mark appli-
cation No 849.497 ‘COMPUSA’.

1. Is Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 (1) of
18 March 1998 to be understood as meaning that Chapter
VII 48 point 7(b) of the annex to Directive 91/628/EEC (2)
of 19 November 1991 applies analogously in the case of
transport by sea on a regular and direct link between a
geographical point of the Community and a geographical
point in a third country by means of vehicles loaded on to
vessels without unloading of the animals?

2. If question one is answered in the affirmative, is Chapter VII
48 point 7(b) of the annex to Directive 91/628/EEC to be
in the case of transport of
understood as meaning that,
bovine animals, the journey time by sea does not comply
with the rule in point 4(d) if, after 14 hours of travel, the
animals are not given a rest period of at least one hour?