Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 200/50 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 14.7.2001

tungssenat Salzburg (Independent Administrative Chamber for European Communities in case T-193/99 between Wm.
Salzburg) of 25 April 2001 which was received at the Court Wrigley Jr. Company and Office for Harmonization in the
Registry on 30 April 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), was brought before
case of Francisco Javier Gonzales Moreno on the following the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 April
questions: 2001 by Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs), represented by Virginia Melgar and
1. Do Articles 28 and 30 EC, Council Directive 76/768/EEC Susanna Laitinen, acting as Agents.
of 27 July 1976( [1] ) on the approximation of the laws of
the Member States relating to cosmetic products, as
amended by Council Directive 88/667/EEC of 21 Decem- The Appellant claims that the Court should:
ber 1988( [2] ) and Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June
1993( [3] ), in particular Article 6(3) thereof, together with — annul the judgment;
Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984( [4] )
relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations — order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings
and administrative provisions of the Member States before the Court of First Instance and before this Court.
concerning misleading advertising, in particular Articles 4
and 7 thereof, preclude national legislation which prohibits, in connection with the marketing of cosmetic
products, references to medical opinions, by the use, in _Pleas in law and main arguments_
particular, of the description ‘ophthalmologically tested’?

2. Do Articles 28 and 30 EC, Council Directive 76/768/EEC
The Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade
of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the
Marks and Designs) submits that:
Member States relating to cosmetic products, as amended
by Council Directive 88/667/EEC of 21 December 1988 —
The Court of First Instance erred in law in interpreting
and Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993, in
Article 7(1)(c) CTMR to require that a term must be
particular Article 6(3) thereof, and Council Directive
‘exclusively descriptive’ if it is to be excluded from
84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 on the approxiregistration as a Community trade mark under that
mation of the laws, regulations and administrative proprovision and in holding that the term ‘Doublemint’ is
visions of the Member States concerning misleading
thus not excluded from registration.
advertising, in particular Articles 4 and 7 thereof, preclude
national legislation which permits the use of references —
The reasoning used to support the reversal of the refusal
falling within the terms of Question 1 only after prior
of the term ‘Doublemint’ is contradictory, founded on an
authorisation by the competent Federal Minister?
artificial analysis, and fails to regard commercial reality
and the context in which the mark is to be used, which
amounts to a reversible error of law because it constitutes
( [1] ) OJ 1976 L 262, p. 169. a manifest error of appreciation.
( [2] ) OJ 1988 L 382, p. 46.
( [3] ) OJ 1993 L 151 p. 32.
( [4] ) OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17.
( [1] ) OJ C 333, 20.11.1999, p. 27.

**Appeal brought on 20 April 2001 by Office for Harmo-**
**nization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)**
**against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001 by the** **Action brought on 4 May 2001 by the Commission of the**
**Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the** **European Communities against the Kingdom of Denmark**
**European Communities in case T-193/99** ( [1] ) **between Wm.**
**Wrigley Jr. Company and Office for Harmonization in the**
**Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)** **(Case C-192/01)**

**(Case C-191/01 P)**
(2001/C 200/91)

(2001/C 200/90)
An action against the Kingdom of Denmark was brought
before the Court of Justice on 4 May 2001 by the Commission
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001 of the European Communities, represented by Hans Christian
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the Støvlbæk, with an address for service in Luxembourg.