Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 44/6 EN Official Journal of the European Union 22.2.2003

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**

**(Sixth Chamber)**

**of 9 January 2003**

**in Case C-292/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from**
**the Bundesgerichtshof): Davidoff & Cie SA, Zino Davidoff**
**SA v Gofkid Ltd** ( [1] )

_**(Directive 89/104/EEC — Articles 4(4)(a) and 5(2) — Well-**_
_**known trade marks — Protection against use of a sign in**_
_**respect of identical or similar products or services)**_

(2003/C 44/10)

_(Language of the case: German)_

_(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published_
_in the European Court Reports)_

In Case C-292/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Davidoff & Cie SA, Zino Davidoff SA and Gofkid Ltd, on the
interpretation of Articles 4(4)(a) and 5(2) of First Council
Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate
the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ
1989 L 40, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), V. Skouris, F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 January
2003, in which it has ruled:

_Articles 4(4)(a) and 5(2) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of_
_21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States_
_relating to trade marks are to be interpreted as entitling the Member_
_States to provide specific protection for well-known registered trade_
_marks in cases where a later mark or sign, which is identical with or_
_similar to the registered mark, is intended to be used or is used for_
_goods or services identical with or similar to those covered by the_
_registered mark._

( [1] ) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**

**(Fifth Chamber)**

**of 16 January 2003**

**in Case C-315/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from**
**the Bundesfinanzhof): Rudolf Maierhofer v Finanzamt**
**Augsburg-Land** ( [1] )

_**(Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Letting of immov-**_
_**able property — Prefabricated building which can be dis-**_
_**mantled and reassembled)**_

(2003/C 44/11)

_(Language of the case: German)_

_(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published_
_in the European Court Reports)_

In Case C-315/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Rudolf
Maierhofer and Finanzamt Augsburg-Land, on the interpretation of Article 13B(b) of the 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), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans,
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 January 2003, in
which it has ruled:

1. _The letting of a building constructed from prefabricated_
_components fixed to or in the ground in such a way that they_
_cannot be easily dismantled or easily moved constitutes a letting_
_of immovable property for the purposes of Article 13B(b) 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, even if the building is to be removed at the_
_end of the lease and re-used on another site;_

2. _Whether the lessor makes available to the lessee both the_
_building and the land on which it is erected or merely the_
_building which he has erected on the lessee’s land is irrelevant_
_in determining whether a letting constitutes a letting of_
_immovable property for the purposes of Article 13B(b) of the_
_Sixth Directive 77/388._

( [1] ) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.