Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 150/8 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 19.5.2001

1. _Declares that, by refusing to refund to taxable persons_ **Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesge-**
_established in a Member State other than the French Republic,_ **richtshof (Federal Court of Justice) — by order of that**
_who are holders of a main contract for a composite supply of_ **court of 23 November 2000 in the case of Winward**
_services relating to waste disposal, the value added tax which_ **Industries Inc.**
_they have been required to pay to the French State in cases_
_where they have subcontracted part of the work covered by such_
**(Case C-54/01)**
_a contract to a taxable person established in France, the French_
_Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Eighth_
_Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the_ (2001/C 150/15)
_harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to_
_turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added_ Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
_tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the_ European Communities by an order of the Bundesgerichtshof
_country, in particular Article 2 thereof;_ of 23 November 2000, which was received at the Court
Registry on 8 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
2. _Dismisses the remainder of the application;_
case of Winward Industries Inc. on the following questions on
the interpretation of Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) of the First
3. _Orders the French Republic to pay the costs._
Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988( [1] ) to
approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
marks:
( [1] ) OJ C 55 of 20.02.1998.

1. In determining whether a three-dimensional trade mark
which depicts the shape of a product has distinctive
character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the
above directive is there a stricter test for distinctive
character than in the case of other forms of trade marks?

**Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesge-**
2. In the case of three-dimensional trade marks which depict
**richtshof (Federal Court of Justice) — by order of that**
**court of 23 November 2000 in the case of Linde AG** the shape of the product, does Article 3(1)(c) of the
Directive have any significance independently of
Article 3(1)(e)? If so, when considering Article 3(1)(c) —
**(Case C-53/01)**
or alternatively Article 3(1)(e) — must regard be had to
the interest of the trade in having the shape of the product
(2001/C 150/14) available for use, so that registration is, at least in
principle, ruled out and is possible as a rule only in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the case of trade marks which meet the requirements of
European Communities by an order of the Bundesgerichtshof Article 3(3), first sentence, of the directive?
of 23 November 2000, which was received at the Court
Registry on 8 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Linde AG on the following questions on the ( [1] ) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.
interpretation of Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) of the First Council
Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988( [1] ) to approximate
the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks:

1. In determining whether a three-dimensional trade mark
which depicts the shape of a product has distinctive
character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the
above directive is there a stricter test for distinctive **Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesge-**
character than in the case of other forms of trade marks? **richtshof (Federal Court of Justice) — by order of that**
**court of 23 November 2000 in the case of Rado Uhren**
2. In the case of three-dimensional trade marks which depict **AG**
the shape of the product, does Article 3(1)(c) of the
Directive have any significance independently of
**(Case C-55/01)**
Article 3(1)(e)? If so, when considering Article 3(1)(c) —
or alternatively Article 3(1)(e) — must regard be had to
the interest of the trade in having the shape of the product (2001/C 150/16)
available for use, so that registration is, at least in
principle, ruled out and is possible as a rule only in the Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
case of trade marks which meet the requirements of European Communities by an order of the Bundesgerichtshof
Article 3(3), first sentence, of the directive? of 23 November 2000, which was received at the Court
Registry on 8 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Rado Uhren AG on the following questions on the
( [1] ) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.
interpretation of Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) of the First Council
Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988( [1] ) to approximate
the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks: