Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

25.1.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 19/3

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**

**of 12 December 2002**

**in Case C-273/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from**
**the Bundespatentgericht): Ralf Sieckmann v Deutsches**
**Patent- und Markenamt** ( [1] )

_**(Trade marks — Approximation of laws — Directive 89/**_
_**104/EEC — Article 2 — Signs of which a trade mark may**_
_**consist — Signs capable of being represented graphically —**_
_**Olfactory signs)**_

(2003/C 19/04)

_(Language of the case: German)_

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

In Case C-273/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Ralf Sieckmann and Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt, on the
interpretation of Article 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, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of
Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rapporteur), N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 12 December 2002, in which it has ruled:

(1) _Article 2 of Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December_
_1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating_
_to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that a trade_
_mark may consist of a sign which is not in itself capable of_
_being perceived visually, provided that it can be represented_
_graphically, particularly by means of images, lines or characters,_
_and that the representation is clear, precise, self-contained,_
_easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective._

(2) _In respect of an olfactory sign, the requirements of graphic_
_representability are not satisfied by a chemical formula, by a_
_description in written words, by the deposit of an odour sample_
_or by a combination of those elements._

( [1] ) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.

**JUDGMENT OF THE COURT**

**(Sixth Chamber)**

**of 5 December 2002**

**in Case C-379/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling**
**from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London): Overland**
**Footwear Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise** ( [1] )

_**(Customs Code — Customs value of imported goods — Price**_
_**of goods and buying commission — Reimbursement of duty**_
_**payable on full amount)**_

(2003/C 19/05)

_(Language of the case: English)_

In Case C-379/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the VAT andDuties Tribunal, London (United Kingdom),
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Overland Footwear Ltd and Commissioners of
Customs and Excise, on the interpretation of Articles 29, 32,
33, 78 and 236 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code
(OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen,
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
5 December 2002, in which it has ruled:

1. _Articles 29, 32 and 33 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/_
_92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs_
_Code must be construed as meaning that a buying commission_
_which is included in the customs value declared and is not_
_shown separately from the selling price of the goods in the_
_import declaration must be considered to be part of the_
_transaction value within the meaning of Article 29 of that_
_regulation and is, therefore, dutiable._

2. _In a situation where the customs authorities have agreed to_
_undertake revision of an import declaration and have adopted a_
_decision ‘regularising the situation’ within the meaning of_
_Article 78(3) of Regulation No 2913/92 taking account of_
_the fact that the declaration was incomplete as a result of an_
_inadvertent error by the declarant, those authorities may not go_
_back on that decision._

( [1] ) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.