Case C-253/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 29 May 2007 — Canterbury Hockey Club, Canterbury Ladies Hockey Club v Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs
Date: 2007-08-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, provision of services, sport, tax exemption

C 183/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.8.2007

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal
(Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 29 May 2007
— Intel Corporation Inc. v CPM United Kingdom Limited

to distinctive character of the earlier mark require an effect
on the economic behaviour of the consumer?

(Case C-252/07)

(2007/C 183/33)

Language of the case: English

(1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1.

Referring court

Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Intel Corporation Inc.

Defendant: CPM United Kingdom Limited

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of
Justice (Chancery Division)
(United Kingdom) made on
29 May 2007 — Canterbury Hockey Club, Canterbury
Ladies Hockey Club v Commissioners of HM Revenue and
Customs

(Case C-253/07)

(2007/C 183/34)

Language of the case: English

Questions referred

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

1. For the purposes of Art 4(4)(a) of the First Council Directive

89/104 of 21st December 1988 (1), where:

Parties to the main proceedings

Referring court

(a) the earlier mark has a huge reputation for certain specific

types of goods or services,

(b) those goods or services are dissimilar or dissimilar to a
substantial degree to the goods or services of the later
mark,

Applicants: Canterbury Hockey Club, Canterbury Ladies Hockey
Club

Defendant: Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs

(c) the earlier mark is unique in respect of any goods or

services,

Questions referred

(d) the earlier mark would be brought

to mind by the
average consumer when he or she encounters the later
mark used for the services of the later mark,

are those facts sufficient in themselves to establish (i) ‘a link’
within the meaning of paragraphs [29] & [30] of Adidas-
Salomon AG v. Fitnessworld Trading Ltd, Case C-408/01,
[2003] ECR I-12537 and/or (ii) unfair advantage and/or
detriment within the meaning of that Article?

2. If no, what factors is the national court to take into account
in deciding whether such is sufficient? Specifically,
in the
global appreciation to determine whether there is a ‘link’,
what significance is to be attached to the goods or services
in the specification of the later mark?

3. In the context of Art 4(4)(a), what is required in order to
satisfy the condition of detriment to distinctive character?
Specifically, does (i) the earlier mark have to be unique, (ii) is
a first conflicting use sufficient to establish detriment to
distinctive character and (iii) does the element of detriment

1. For

of

the

purposes

exemption

in
the
Article 13 A (1)(m) of the Sixth Directive (1), does the term
‘persons’
‘persons taking part in sport’
include corporate persons and unincorporated associations,
or is it limited to individuals, in the sense of natural persons
or human beings?

in the context of

contained

2. If the term ‘persons’ in the context of ‘persons taking part in
sport’ does include corporate persons and unincorporated
associations, as well as individuals, does the expression
‘certain services closely linked to sport’ permit a Member
State to limit the exemption only to individuals taking part
in sport?

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmo-
nisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes
— Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
(OJ L 145, p. 1).