Case C-281/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Montex Holdings Ltd v Diesel SpA (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Right of the proprietor of a trade mark to prohibit the transit of goods bearing an identical sign through the territory of a Member State in which the mark enjoys protection — Unlawful manufacture — Associated State)
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, transit

C 326/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31
March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy
referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the
milk and milk products sector, as amended by Council Regulation
(EEC) No 590/85 of 26 February 1985, and points 2, 3 and 4
of the first subparagraph of Article 7 of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 1546/88 of 3 June 1988 laying down detailed rules
for the application of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of
Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 are to be interpreted as meaning
that on the return of a leased part of a holding the corresponding
reference quantity for that part cannot pass to the landlord if he is
not a milk producer, does not intend to carry out such an activity
and does not intend to grant a lease for the undertaking concerned
to a milk producer.

2. Article 7(1) of Regulation No 857/84, as amended by Regulation
No 590/85, and point 4 of the first subparagraph of Article 7 of
Regulation No 1546/88 preclude the reference quantity from being
retained by the tenant on the ending of a rural lease, where the
lease has been voluntarily brought to an end.

(1) OJ C 229, 17.09.2005.

Article 5(1) and (3) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21
December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States
relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Right of the
proprietor of a trade mark to prohibit the transit of goods
bearing an identical sign across the territory of a Member State
where that mark is protected — No protection in the country of
destination

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 5(1) and (3) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21
December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States
relating to trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that the
proprietor of a trade mark can prohibit
through a
Member State in which that mark is protected (the Federal Republic
of Germany in the present case) of goods bearing the trade mark
and placed under the external transit procedure, whose destination
is another Member State where the mark is not so protected
(Ireland in the present case), only if those goods are subject to the
act of a third party while they are placed under the external transit
procedure which necessarily entails their being put on the market in
that Member State of transit.

the transit

2. It is in that regard,

in principle, irrelevant whether goods whose
destination is a Member State come from an associated State or a
third country, or whether those goods have been manufactured in
the country of origin lawfully or in infringement of the existing
trade mark rights of the proprietor in that country.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 November
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
gerichtshof — Germany) — Montex Holdings Ltd v Diesel
SpA

(1) OJ C 243, 01.10.2005.

(Case C-281/05) (1)

(Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Right of the
proprietor of a trade mark to prohibit the transit of goods
bearing an identical sign through the territory of a Member
State in which the mark enjoys protection — Unlawful manu-
facture — Associated State)

(2006/C 326/31)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Montex Holdings Ltd

Defendant: Diesel SpA

Re:

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 October
the European Communities v
2006 — Commission of

Italian Republic

(Case C-302/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2000/35/EC — Article 4(1) — Retention of title — Enforce-
ability)

(2006/C 326/32)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: B. Schima and D. Recchia, Agents)

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof —
Interpretation of Articles 28, 29 and 30 of the EC Treaty and of

Defendant:
Agent, and M. Massella Ducci Teri, avocat)

Italian Republic (represented by:

I.M. Braguglia,