Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 323/22 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 21.12.2002

C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
D.A.O. Edward and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 November 2002, in which it:

1. _Dismisses the appeal;_

2. _Orders Mr Hirschfeldt to pay the costs._

( [1] ) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**

**of 12 November 2002**

**in Case C-206/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from**
**the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery**
**Division): Arsenal Football Club plc v Matthew Reed** ( [1] )

_**(Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/**_
_**104/EEC — Article 5(1)(a) — Scope of the proprietor’s**_
_**exclusive right to the trade mark)**_

(2002/C 323/29)

_(Language of the case: English)_

In Case C-206/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales,
Chancery Division, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Arsenal Football Club plc
and Matthew Reed, on the interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) of
the 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, composed of:
G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet,M. Wathelet,
C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers),
C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,
N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 November 2002, in
which it has ruled:

_In a situation which is not covered by Article 6(1) of the First Council_
_Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the_
_laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, where a third_

_party uses in the course of trade a sign which is identical to a validly_
_registered trade mark on goods which are identical to those for which_
_it is registered, the trade mark proprietor of the mark is entitled, in_
_circumstances such as those in the present case, to rely on Article_
_5(1)(a) of that directive to prevent that use. It is immaterial that, in_
_the context of that use, the sign is perceived as a badge of support for_
_or loyalty or affiliation to the trade mark proprietor._

( [1] ) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**

**(Second Chamber)**

**of 7 November 2002**

**In Joined Cases C-228/01 and C-289/01 (Reference for a**
**preliminary ruling from the tribunal de grande instance**
**de Dax): Jacques Bourrasse and Jean-Marie Perchicot** ( [1] )

_**(Transport— Directive 84/647/EEC — Use of vehicles hired**_
_**without drivers for the carriage of goods by road —**_
_**Registration of hired vehicles — Hired vehicles operating**_
_**under Community**_ _**authorisation**_ _**— Regulation**_ _**(EEC)**_
_**No 881/92 — Management of tachograph discs of hired**_
_**vehicles — Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85)**_

(2002/C 323/30)

_(Language of the case: French)_

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

In Joined Cases C-228/01 and C-289/01: Reference to the
Court under Article 234 EC by the Cour d’appel de Pau (C-228/
01) and the Tribunal de grande instance de Dax (C-289/01)
(France) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings
pending before those courts against Jacques Bourrasse (C-228/
01) and Jean-Marie Perchicot (C-289/01) Third parties: Union
régionale syndicale des petits et moyens transporteurs du SudOuest (Unostra Aquitaine) (C-228/01), Fédération générale des
transports et de l’équipement CFDT (FGTE-CFDT) (C-289/01)
and Inspection du travail des transports (C-228/01 and C-289/
01), and on the interpretation of Article 2 of Council Directive
84/647/EEC of 19 December 1984 on the use of vehicles
hired without drivers for the carriage of goods by road (OJ
1984 L 335, p. 72), as amended by Council Directive 90/398/
EEC of 24 July 1990 (OJ 1990 L 202, p. 46), the Court (Second