Case C-261/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 1 June 2007 — VTB-VAB NV v Total Belgium NV
Date: 2007-08-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, consumer information, consumer protection, domestic market, interpretation of the law, restriction on competition

C 199/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.8.2007

Fourth, the similarity of the signs depends on the similarity in
figurative, aural and conceptual
terms, with reliance being
placed on the overall
impression in each case, although the
distinctive and dominant elements must be taken into account.
The opposing mark is a figurative mark, consisting of the word
‘terra’ and a figurative element that is approximately the same
size as the word element ‘terra’. The mere fact that the contested
trade mark has no figurative element means that clear differ-
ences can be seen on an overall comparison of the marks.
However, even if the word element ‘terra’ is assumed to domi-
nate the opposing mark, there is no relevant similarity for the
purposes of trade mark law. It must be emphasised that the
term ‘terra’, which is well-known, conceptually, to the public, is
indeed incorporated in its entirety into the fanciful word
‘Terranus’. However, the ‘terra’ sign has no independent, distinc-
tive position in the ‘Terranus’ mark. Furthermore, the public is
accustomed to the fact that terms which are derived from a
certain root can acquire an entirely different meaning as a result
of a variation, thereby losing any conceptual connection with
the original term.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van
lodged on 1 June
Koophandel te Antwerpen (Belgium)

2007 — VTB-VAB NV v Total Belgium NV

(Case C-261/07)

(2007/C 199/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van Koophandel te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VTB-VAB NV

Defendant: Total Belgium NV

Question referred

Does Directive 2005/29 (1) of the European Parliament and of
the Council concerning unfair commercial practices preclude a
national provision such as Article 54 of the Belgian Law of
14 July 1991 on commercial practices, consumer information
and consumer protection, which, subject to the exhaustive list
of exceptions contained within that Law, prohibits any collateral
including an offer in which
offer by a seller to a consumer,

goods which the consumer has to buy are tied to a free service,
the acquisition of which is linked to the purchase of the goods,
notwithstanding the circumstances of individual cases, in par-
ticular notwithstanding the possible influence of the actual offer
on the average consumer, or whether,
in the actual circum-
stances, that offer may be regarded as contravening the profes-
sional duty of care and genuine commercial custom?

(1) Directive 2005/29/EC of

the European Parliament and of

the
Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer
commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council
Directive
and
2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and
Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of
the Council (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

84/450/EEC, Directives

98/27/EC

97/7/EC,

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Civile di Roma (Italy) lodged on 4 June 2007 — Caffaro Srl
v Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale RM/C

(Case C-265/07)

(2007/C 199/29)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale Civile di Roma

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Caffaro Srl

Defendant: Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale RM/C

Question referred

In so far as it provides that, in the case of enforcement against
public authorities, creditors may not act to effect such enforce-
ment until a period of 120 days has elapsed following service of
the recovery order, does Article 14 of Decree Law No 669/1996,
as amended by Article 147 of Law No 388/2000, conflict with
Directive 2000/35/EC (1), in particular with Article 5 thereof?

(1) OJ L 200, 8.8.2000, p. 35.