Case C-344/07 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 April 2008 — Focus Magazine Verlag GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Merant GmbH (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion — Word mark FOCUS )
Date: 2008-04-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), appeal, audiovisual equipment, office supplies, publication, recording medium, trade-mark law

C 209/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.8.2008

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant: Comunidad Autónoma de Canarias

Applicant: Jonathan Pilato

Defendant: Jean-Claude Bourgault

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Prud'homie de pêche de
Martigues — Interpretation of Article 11a of Council Regulation
(EC) No 894/97 of 29 April 1997 laying down certain technical
measures for the conservation of fishery resources (OJ 1997
L 132, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No
1239/98 of 8 June 1998 (OJ 1998 L 171, p. 1) — Definition of
‘drift-net’ — Whether that definition includes the ‘thonaille’ —
Environmental objective of the prohibitive measure laid down
in Article 11a — Validity of this provision in the light, in par-
ticular, of the legal basis used for its adoption

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly does not
have jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred by the Prud'homie de
pêche de Martigues by decision of 17 December 2006.

Re:

the Court

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Superior de
Justicia de Canarias (High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands)
— Interpretation of
in Case
the judgment of
C-124/96 which found that national legislation placing restric-
tions on exemption from VAT of certain services closely
connected with the practice of sport or physical education is
incompatible with Article 13A(1)(m) of Sixth Council Directive
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws
of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977
L 145, p. 1) — Application to the Canary Islands

Operative part of the order

The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal Superior
de Justicia de Canarias, by decision of 26 November 2006, is inad-
missible.

(1) OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

(1) OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 April 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Superior de Justicia de Canarias (Spain)) — Club Náutico
de Gran Canaria v Comunidad Autónoma de Canarias

(Case C-186/07) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive —
Exemptions — Services connected with the practice of sport or
physical education — Application to the Canary Islands —
Purely internal situation — Referral — Manifest inadmissi-
bility of the reference for a preliminary ruling)

(2008/C 209/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 April 2008 —
Focus Magazine Verlag GmbH v Office for Harmonisation
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Merant
GmbH

(Case C-344/07 P) (1)

(Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Likelihood of confusion —
Word mark ‘FOCUS’)

(2008/C 209/22)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Parties

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Canarias (Spain)

Applicant: Focus Magazine Verlag GmbH (represented by: M.
Herrmann and B. Müller, Rechtsanwälte)

Parties

Applicant: Club Náutico de Gran Canaria

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G.
Schneider, agent), Merant GmbH (represented by: A. Schultz,
Rechtsanwält)

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/17

Re:

Intervener: Azienda Sanitaria locale ULSS No 15 (Alta Padovana,
Regione Veneto, Italy)

(Trade Marks and Designs)

Appeal against the judgment of
the Court of First Instance
(Third Chamber) of 16 May 2007 in Case T-491/04 Merant v
OHIM, by which the Court annulled decision R 542/2002-2 of
the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
the internal Market
(OHIM) of
18 October 2004 upholding an action against the opposition
decision which partially rejected the application for registration
of Community word mark ‘FOCUS’ for goods and services in
classes 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33,
34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42 in opposition proceedings
figurative mark
brought by the proprietor of
‘MICRO FOCUS’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 41
and 42 — Likelihood of confusion between two marks

the national

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 May 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di
Stato (Italy)) — Hospital Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak
SpA, Tecnologie Sanitarie SpA v Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs,
Telematic & Biomedical Service SpA, Draeger Medica Italia
SpA, Officina Biomedica Divisione Servizi SpA

(Case C-386/07) (1)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Inter-
pretation of Articles 10 and 81(1) EC and Directive 98/5/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February
1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of
lawyer on a
permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the
qualification was obtained (OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36) — Fixing by a
national professional organisation of mandatory tariffs
for
lawyers' services subject
to ministerial approval — National
rules prohibiting judges in decisions on costs from derogating
from the set minimum fees

Operative part of the order

1. Articles 10 EC and 81 EC do not preclude a national law which
in principle prohibits derogation from minimum fees approved by
ministerial decree, on the basis of a draft drawn up by a profes-
sional body of members of the Bar such as the Consiglia nazionale
forense, and which also prohibits the judge, when he decides the
amount of costs that the unsuccessful party must pay to the other
party, from derogating from those minimum fees.

2. The third question referred by the Consiglio di Stato by decision of

13 January 2006 is clearly inadmissible.

(1) OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

(Rules of procedure — Articles 92(1) and 104(3) — Com-
munity competition rules — National
concerning
lawyers' fees — Setting of professional scales of charges —
Partial inadmissibility — Answers to questions which may be
deduced from the case-law of the Court)

rules

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd
Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — Karol Mihal v
Daňový úrad Košice V

(2008/C 209/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties

(Case C-456/07) (1)

(Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure
— Sixth VAT Directive — Taxable persons — Article 4(5),
first subparagraph — Bodies governed by public law —
Bailiffs — Natural and legal persons)

(2008/C 209/24)

Language of the case: Slovak

Applicants: Hospital Consulting Srl, ATI HC, Kodak SpA, Tecno-
logie Sanitarie SpA

Referring court

Defendants: Esaote SpA, ATI, Ital Tbs Telematic & Biomedical
Service SpA, Draeger Medica Italia SpA, Officina Biomedica
Divisione Servizi SpA

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

(1) OJ C 315, 22.12.2007.