Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 131/2 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 1.6.2002

3. _The_ _Parliament’s_ _application_ _for_ _the_ _Court_ _to_ _order_ **Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundespa-**
_Mr Panichelli to bear his own costs at first instance in Case_ **tentgericht by order of that Court of 22 January 2002**
_T-130/98 is rejected._ **in the administrative appeal brought by Heidelberger**
**Bauchemie GmbH**

( [1] ) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
**(Case C-49/02)**

(2002/C 131/04)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
**ORDER OF THE COURT** European Communities by order of the Bundespatentgericht
(Federal Patents Court) (Germany) of 22 January 2002, received
at the Court Registry on 20 February 2002, for a preliminary
**(Fourth Chamber)** ruling in the administrative appeal brought by Heidelberger
Bauchemie GmbH on the following questions:

**of 14 March 2002**

For the purposes of registration as a trade mark, do colours or
**in Joined Cases C-250/01 P and C-251/01 P: Mario Costac-** combinations of colours claimed in the abstract, without
**urta v Commission of the European Communities** ( [1] ) delineation and in hues which are indicated by a colour sample
(colour specimen), named in words and identified under a
recognised colour classification system fulfil the requirements
_**(Appeals — Application of Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff**_ for ability to constitute a trade mark laid down in Article 2 of
_**Regulations — Re-posting of the applicant to a non-Member**_ First Council Directive 89/104/EEC( [1] ) of 21 December 1988
_**State — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility — Appeal**_ to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
_**manifestly unfounded and inadmissible — Costs)**_ marks?

(2002/C 131/03)
In particular, for the purposes of Article 2 of the directive, is
such an ‘(abstract) colour mark’
_(Language of the case: French)_
a) a sign,

_(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published_
b) sufficiently distinctive to be capable of indicating origin,
_in the European Court Reports)_

c) capable of being represented graphically?

In Joined Cases C-250/01 P and C-251/01 P: Mario Costacurta, ( [1] ) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1.
a former official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing at Luxembourg, represented by M. Petit,
lawyer — two appeals against the orders of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities, Second Chamber, of
7 June 2001 in Case T-328/00 Costacurta v Commission, not
published in the European Court Reports, seeking to have
those orders set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht**
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall,
**Eisenstadt by order of that Court of 17 January 2002 in**
assisted by B. Wägenbaur) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
**the private prosecutions brought by Montres Rolex S.A.**
composed of S. von Bahr, President of Chamber, **and Others**
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and A. La Pergola, Judges; D. RuizJarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made
an order on 14 March 2002, the operative part of which is as **(Case C-60/02)**
follows:

(2002/C 131/05)
1. _The appeals are dismissed._

2. _Mr Costacurta shall bear the costs._
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht Eisenstadt (Regional Court, Eisenstadt) of 17 January 2002, received
( [1] ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
at the Court Registry on 25 February 2002, for a preliminary
ruling in the private prosecutions brought by Montres Rolex
S.A. and Others, on the following question: