Case C-102/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 21 February 2007 — Adidas AG and Adidas Benelux BV v Marca Mode, C&A Nederland, H&M Hennes & Mauritz Netherlands BV and Vendex KBB Nederland BV
Date: 2007-04-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, patents licence, trade mark, trade-mark law

C 82/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.4.2007

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden, lodged on 21 February 2007 — Adidas AG
and Adidas Benelux BV v Marca Mode, C&A Nederland,
H&M Hennes & Mauritz Netherlands BV and Vendex KBB
Nederland BV

Action brought on 21 February 2007 — Commission of
the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-104/07)

(2007/C 82/49)

Language of the case: Italian

(Case C-102/07)

(2007/C 82/48)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Adidas AG and Adidas Benelux BV

Respondents: Marca Mode, C&A Nederland, H&M Hennes &
Mauritz Netherlands BV and Vendex KBB Nederland BV

Questions referred

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Condou-Durande and E. De Persio, acting as
Agents)

Defendant: Italian Republic

Form of order sought

2003/109/EC (1)

— Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive
2003
concerning the status of third-country nationals who are
long-term residents or, in any event, by failing to communi-
cate them to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed
to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

25 November

of

— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. In the determination of

the extent

to which protection
should be given to a trade mark formed by a sign which
does not in itself have any distinctive character or by a desig-
nation which corresponds to the description in Article 3(1)
(c) of Directive 89/104/EEC (1), but which has become a
trade mark through the process of becoming customary and
has been registered, should account be taken of the general
interest in ensuring that the availability of given signs is not
unduly restricted for other traders offering the goods or
services concerned (the requirement of availability)?

period

The
for
2003/109/EC into domestic law expired on 23 January 2006.

transposition

prescribed

of Directive

(1) OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44.

2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: does it
make any difference whether the signs which are referred to
therein and which are to be held available are seen by the
relevant public as being signs used to distinguish goods or
merely to embellish them?

3. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: does it,
further, make any difference whether the sign contested by
the holder of a trade mark is devoid of distinctive character,
within the terms of Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 89/104/EEC,
or contains a designation, within the terms of Article 3(1)(c)
of the Directive?

Order of the President of the Court of 18 January 2007 —
Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of
Spain

(Case C-47/05) (1)

(2007/C 82/50)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of
removed from the register.

the Court has ordered that

the case be

(1) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approx-
imate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ
1989 L 40, p. 1).

(1) OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.