Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

24.3.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 95/5

**Reference for a preliminary ruling form the Kilpailuneu-** Must the words ‘put to genuine use’ in Article 12(1) of
**vosto by order of that tribunal of 14 December 2000 in** Directive 89/104/EEC( [1] ) be interpreted in the manner set out
**the case of Arkkitehtuuritoimisto Riitta Korhonen Oy,** in paragraph 3.4 above( [2] ) and, if the answer is in the negative,
**Arkkitehtitoimisto Pentti Toivanen Oy and Rakennuttaja-** on the basis of which (other) criterion must the meaning of
**toimisto Vilho Tervomaa v Varkauden Taitotalo Oy** ‘genuine use’ be determined?

**(Case C-18/01)** Can there be ‘genuine use’ as referred to above also where no
new goods are traded under the trade mark but other activities
are engaged in as set out in subparagraphs (v) and (vi) of
(2001/C 95/07)
paragraph 3.1 above( [3] )?

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Kilpailuneuvosto
(Competition Council), Finland, of 14 December 2000, which
was received at the Court Registry on 16 January 2001, for a ( [1] ) OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989.
preliminary ruling in the case of Arkkitehtuuritoimisto Riitta ( [2] ) The question whether a particular use can be regarded as ‘genuine
Korhonen Oy, Arkkitehtitoimisto Pentti Toivanen Oy and use’ can be answered only (i) by taking into consideration all the
Rakennuttajatoimisto Vilho Tervomaa v Varkauden Taitotalo facts and circumstances specific to the case whereby (ii) the
Oy on the following question: decisive factor is whether all the facts and circumstances specific
to the case, when viewed in connection with one another and in
the context of what is regarded as usual and commercially justified
Is a share company which a town owns and in which the town
in the relevant sector of the trade, create the impression that the
exercises control to be regarded as a contracting authority use serves to find or preserve a market for goods and services
within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Council Directive under that trade mark and not simply to maintain the trade mark,
92/50/EEC relating to the coordination of procedures for the and whereby (iii) account must generally be taken, as regards
award of public service contracts( [1] ), if the company acquires these facts and circumstances, of the kind, extent, frequency,
design and project management services for a building project regularity and duration of the use in conjunction with the kind of
comprising offices to be leased to undertakings? goods or service and the kind and size of the undertaking.
( [3] ) Sale of components and extinguishing compositions for fireAs a supplementary question, the Kilpailuneuvosto enquires extinguishing apparatus covered by the trade mark MINIMAX to
whether it affects the decision on the point that the town’s undertakings which maintained similar apparatus. Maintaining,
checking, regauging, repairing and overhauling of firebuilding project endeavours to create the conditions for
extinguishing apparatus marked with the trade mark MINIMAX,
business activity to be carried on in the town.
using stickers bearing the words ‘Gebruiksklaar Minimax’ (Read
for use — Minimax).
As a second supplementary question, the Kilpailuneuvosto
enquires whether it affects the decision on the point that the
offices to be built are leased to one undertaking only.

( [1] ) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.

**Appeal brought on 1 February 2001 by Sandro Cognigni**
**against the order made on 30 November 2000 by the**
**Court of First Instance of the European Communities**
**(First Chamber) in Case T-314/00 Sandro Cognigni vo**
**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der** **Commission of the European Communities**
**Nederlanden by order of 26 January 2001 in the case of**
**Ansul B.V. and Ajax Brandbeveiliging B.V.**
**(Case C-43/01 P)**

**(Case C-40/01)**
(2001/C 95/09)

(2001/C 95/08)
An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 February 2001 by Sandro
European Communities by order of 26 January 2001 by Cognigni, represented by Walter Massucci, of the Fermo (AP)
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Bar, having Chambers in Pedaso, 5 Via Giovanni XXIII, against
Netherlands), which was received at the Court Registry on the order made on 30 November 2000 by the Court of First
31 January 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ansul Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case
B.V. and Ajax Brandbeveiliging B.V. on the following questions: T-314/00 Sandro Cognigni v Commission of the EC.