Case C-59/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 15 February 2008 — Copad SA v 1. Christian Dior couture SA, 2. Vincent Gladel, acting as receiver of Société industrielle de lingerie (SIL), 3. Société industrielle de lingerie (SIL)
Date: 2008-02-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, industrial property, interpretation of the law, marketing, patents licence, trade mark

C 92/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.4.2008

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
Cassation (France) lodged on 15 February 2008 — Copad
SA v 1. Christian Dior couture SA, 2. Vincent Gladel,
acting as receiver of Société industrielle de lingerie (SIL),
3. Société industrielle de lingerie (SIL)

Action brought on 18 February 2008 — Commission of
the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

(Case C-61/08)

(2008/C 92/38)

Language of the case: Greek

(Case C-59/08)

(2008/C 92/37)

Parties

Language of the case: French

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: G. Zavvos and H. Støvlbæk)

Referring court

Cour de Cassation (France)

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Copad SA

Defendants: 1. Christian Dior couture SA, 2. Vincent Gladel,
acting as
receiver of Société industrielle de lingerie (SIL),
3. Société industrielle de lingerie (SIL)

Questions referred

1. Must Article 8(2) of First Council Directive No 89/104/EEC
of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of
the
Member States relating to trade marks (1) be interpreted as
meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark can invoke the
rights conferred by that trade mark against a licensee who
contravenes a provision in the licensing contract prohibiting,
on grounds of the trade mark's prestige, sale to discount
stores?

2. Must Article 7(1) of that directive be interpreted as meaning
that a licensee who puts goods bearing a trade mark on the
market in the European Economic Area in disregard of a
provision of the licensing contract prohibiting, on grounds
of the trade mark's prestige, sale to discount stores, does so
without the consent of the trade mark proprietor?

3. If not, can the proprietor invoke such a provision to oppose
the goods, on the basis of

further commercialisation of
Article 7(2) of that directive?

(1) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

— declare that, by laying down and maintaining in operation
Article 19(1) of the Notaries' Code (Law 2830/2000), the
Hellenic Republic is in breach of its obligations pursuant to
the Treaty establishing the European Community, in particu-
lar under Articles 43 and 45 EC and Council Directive
89/48/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 on a general system
for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded
on completion of professional education and training of at
least three years' duration;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. The Greek authorities maintain that the activities of notaries
are excluded from the application of Article 43 EC because
they fall with the scope of application of Article 45 EC. They
rely upon the status of notaries as public officials who confer
on a notarised document increased evidential and executory
force, similar to that of a judicial decision, with the use of
the State seal, the status of notaries as judicial officials, their
role as legal advisers, and a whole series of other activities.
They also rely on the principle of
territoriality, whereby
Greek notaries are not permitted to establish themselves in
other districts.

2. The Commission considers that Article 43 EC constitutes
one of the fundamental provisions of the Community and
has direct application in the Member States from the end of
the transitional period. It is aimed at ensuring the benefit of
national treatment to every citizen of a Member State who
establishes him or herself in another Member State, even as a
to exercise a liberal profession and
secondary residence,
prohibits any discrimination on the ground of nationality
created by national legislation.

3. The derogation to freedom of establishment provided for in
the first paragraph of Article 45 must be restricted to activ-
ities which in themselves
‘are directly and specifically
connected with the exercise of official authority’ (2). In the
Commission's view, none of the special features or activities
relied upon by the Greek authorities constitute a direct and
specific connection with the exercise of official authority as
referred to in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the
European Communities and accordingly could not justify the
nationality requirement.