Case C-316/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Domstolen — Sweden) — Nokia Corp. v Joacim Wärdell (Community trade mark — Article 98(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Infringement or threatened infringement — Obligation of a Community trade mark court to issue an order prohibiting a third party from proceeding with such acts — Definition of special reasons for not issuing such a prohibition — Obligation of a Community trade mark court to take such measures as are aimed at ensuring that such a prohibition is complied with — National legislation laying down a general prohibition of infringement or threatened infringement coupled with penalties)
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, industrial counterfeiting, interpretation of the law, legal process, penalty

C 331/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

The same is true when the national authorities accept as the transac-
tion value, in accordance with Community law, the price of a sale other
than that made by the Community purchaser. In such cases, ‘buyer’ for
the purposes of Article 32(1)(b) or (c) of the Customs Code must be
understood to mean the buyer who concluded that other sale.

(1) OJ C 228, 11.9.2004.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 November
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice
di pace di Monselice (Italy)) — Lidl Italia Srl v Comune di
Arcole (VR)

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2, 3 and 12 of Directive 2000/13/EC of
the European
Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approxima-
tion of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presen-
tation and advertising of
foodstuffs are to be interpreted as not
precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the
main proceedings, which makes it possible for an operator, established
in that Member State, which distributes a pre-packaged alcoholic
beverage to be delivered as such within the meaning of Article 1 of
that directive, produced by an operator established in another Member
State, to be held liable for an infringement of that provision, estab-
lished by a public authority, resulting from the producer's inaccurate
statement on the product label of the alcoholic strength by volume of
the product and, consequently, to be penalised by an administrative
fine, even where, as the mere distributor, it simply markets the product
as delivered to it by the producer.

(Case C-315/05) (1)

(1) OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.

strength by volume

(Directive 2000/13/EC — Labelling of foodstuffs to be deliv-
ered as such to the ultimate consumer — Scope of the obliga-
tions under Articles 2, 3 and 12 — Compulsory statement of
the alcoholic
certain alcoholic
beverages — Alcoholic beverage produced in a Member State
other than that in which the distributor is established —
‘Amaro alle erbe’ — Actual alcoholic strength by volume
lower than that appearing on the label — Overstepping of the
tolerance — Administrative fine — Liability of the distri-
butor)

for

(2006/C 331/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Giudice di pace di Monselice (Italy)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Lidl Italia Srl

Defendant: Comune di Arcole (VR)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di Pace di Monse-
lice — Interpretation of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European
the Council of 20 March 2000 on the
Parliament and of
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (OJ 2000 L
109, p. 29) — Scope of the obligations under Articles 2, 3 and
12 of the directive — Alcoholic beverage produced and pack-
aged in another Member State having an alcohol content lower
than that stated on the label — ‘Amaro alle erbe’

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta
Domstolen — Sweden) — Nokia Corp. v Joacim Wärdell

(Case C-316/05) (1)

(Community trade mark — Article 98(1) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 — Infringement or threatened infringement —
Obligation of a Community trade mark court to issue an order
prohibiting a third party from proceeding with such acts —
Definition of ‘special reasons’ for not issuing such a prohibi-
tion — Obligation of a Community trade mark court to take
such measures as are aimed at ensuring that such a prohibi-
tion is complied with — National legislation laying down a
general prohibition of infringement or threatened infringe-
ment coupled with penalties)

(2006/C 331/24)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta Domstolen (Sweden)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nokia Corp.

Defendant: Joacim Wärdell

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/15

Re:

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November
the European Communities v
2006 — Commission of

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Högsta Domstolen —
Interpretation of Article 98(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No
40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark
(OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) — Obligation of a Community trade mark
court which finds that the defendant has infringed or threatens
to infringe a Community trade mark, to issue, save where there
are specific reasons for not doing so, an order prohibiting him
from further infringements or threats to infringe — National
legislation already containing a general prohibition of infringe-
ment and providing for penalties in the case of further such acts

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 98(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20
December 1993 on the Community trade mark is to be interpreted
as meaning that the mere fact that the risk of further infringement
or threatened infringement of a Community trade mark is not
obvious or is otherwise merely limited does not constitute a special
reason for a Community trade mark court not to issue an order
prohibiting the defendant from proceeding with those acts.

2. Article 98(1) of Regulation No 40/94 is to be interpreted as
meaning that the fact that the national
law includes a general
prohibition of the infringement of Community trade marks and
provides for the possibility of penalising further infringement or
threatened infringement, whether intentional or due to gross negli-
gence, does not constitute a special reason for a Community trade
mark court not to issue an order prohibiting the defendant from
proceeding with those acts.

3. Article 98(1) of Regulation No 40/94 is to be interpreted as
meaning that a Community trade mark court which has issued an
order prohibiting the defendant from proceeding with infringement
or threatened infringement of a Community trade mark is required
to take such measures, in accordance with its national law, as are
aimed at ensuring that that prohibition is complied with, even if
the national law includes a general prohibition of infringement of
Community trade marks and provides for the possibility of pena-
lising further
threatened infringement, whether
intentional or due to gross negligence.

infringement or

4. Article 98(1) of Regulation 40/94 is to be interpreted as meaning
that a Community trade mark court which has issued an order
prohibiting the defendant from proceeding with infringement or
threatened infringement of a Community trade mark is required to
take, from among the measures provided for under national law,
such as are aimed at ensuring that that prohibition is complied
with, even if those measures could not, under that law, be taken in
the case of a corresponding infringement of a national trade mark.

Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-357/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2003/55/EC — Internal market in natural gas — Failure to
transpose within the prescribed period)

(2006/C 331/25)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: B. Schima and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno,
Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to
comply with Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules
for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive
98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for
the
in natural gas and repealing Directive
98/30/EC, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
under that directive.

internal market

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 257, 15.10.2005.

(1) OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.