Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 150/8 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 19.5.2001

1. _Declares that, by refusing to refund to taxable persons_ **Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesge-**
_established in a Member State other than the French Republic,_ **richtshof (Federal Court of Justice) — by order of that**
_who are holders of a main contract for a composite supply of_ **court of 23 November 2000 in the case of Winward**
_services relating to waste disposal, the value added tax which_ **Industries Inc.**
_they have been required to pay to the French State in cases_
_where they have subcontracted part of the work covered by such_
**(Case C-54/01)**
_a contract to a taxable person established in France, the French_
_Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Eighth_
_Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the_ (2001/C 150/15)
_harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to_
_turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added_ Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
_tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the_ European Communities by an order of the Bundesgerichtshof
_country, in particular Article 2 thereof;_ of 23 November 2000, which was received at the Court
Registry on 8 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
2. _Dismisses the remainder of the application;_
case of Winward Industries Inc. on the following questions on
the interpretation of Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) of the First
3. _Orders the French Republic to pay the costs._
Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988( [1] ) to
approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
marks:
( [1] ) OJ C 55 of 20.02.1998.

1. In determining whether a three-dimensional trade mark
which depicts the shape of a product has distinctive
character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the
above directive is there a stricter test for distinctive
character than in the case of other forms of trade marks?

**Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesge-**
2. In the case of three-dimensional trade marks which depict
**richtshof (Federal Court of Justice) — by order of that**
**court of 23 November 2000 in the case of Linde AG** the shape of the product, does Article 3(1)(c) of the
Directive have any significance independently of
Article 3(1)(e)? If so, when considering Article 3(1)(c) —
**(Case C-53/01)**
or alternatively Article 3(1)(e) — must regard be had to
the interest of the trade in having the shape of the product
(2001/C 150/14) available for use, so that registration is, at least in
principle, ruled out and is possible as a rule only in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the case of trade marks which meet the requirements of
European Communities by an order of the Bundesgerichtshof Article 3(3), first sentence, of the directive?
of 23 November 2000, which was received at the Court
Registry on 8 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Linde AG on the following questions on the ( [1] ) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.
interpretation of Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) of the First Council
Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988( [1] ) to approximate
the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks:

1. In determining whether a three-dimensional trade mark
which depicts the shape of a product has distinctive
character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the
above directive is there a stricter test for distinctive **Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesge-**
character than in the case of other forms of trade marks? **richtshof (Federal Court of Justice) — by order of that**
**court of 23 November 2000 in the case of Rado Uhren**
2. In the case of three-dimensional trade marks which depict **AG**
the shape of the product, does Article 3(1)(c) of the
Directive have any significance independently of
**(Case C-55/01)**
Article 3(1)(e)? If so, when considering Article 3(1)(c) —
or alternatively Article 3(1)(e) — must regard be had to
the interest of the trade in having the shape of the product (2001/C 150/16)
available for use, so that registration is, at least in
principle, ruled out and is possible as a rule only in the Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
case of trade marks which meet the requirements of European Communities by an order of the Bundesgerichtshof
Article 3(3), first sentence, of the directive? of 23 November 2000, which was received at the Court
Registry on 8 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Rado Uhren AG on the following questions on the
( [1] ) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.
interpretation of Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) of the First Council
Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988( [1] ) to approximate
the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks:

19.5.2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 150/9

1. In determining whether a three-dimensional trade mark **Appeal brought on 19 February 2001 by Chronopost SA**
which depicts the shape of a product has distinctive **against the judgment delivered on 14 December 2000 by**
character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the **the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court**
above directive is there a stricter test for distinctive **of First Instance of the European Communities in Case**
character than in the case of other forms of trade marks? **T-613/97 between Union Française de l’Express (UFEX),**
**DHL International, Federal Express International (France)**
**and CRIE and the Commission of the European Communi-**
2. In the case of three-dimensional trade marks which depict
**ties, supported by the French Republic, Chronopost SA**
the shape of the product, does Article 3(1)(c) of the **and La Poste**
Directive have any significance independently of
Article 3(1)(e)? If so, when considering Article 3(1)(c) —
or alternatively Article 3(1)(e) — must regard be had to **(Case C-83/01 P)**
the interest of the trade in having the shape of the product
available for use, so that registration is, at least in (2001/C 150/18)
principle, ruled out and is possible as a rule only in the
case of trade marks which meet the requirements of
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 December
Article 3(3), first sentence, of the directive?
2000 by the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
T-613/97 between Union Française de l’Express (UFEX), DHL
( [1] ) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1. International, Federal Express International (France) and CRIE
and the Commission of the European Communities, supported
by the French Republic, Chronopost SA and La Poste, was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 February 2001 by Chronopost SA, represented by
V. Bouaziz Torron and D. Berlin, Avocats, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

—
quash the decision of the Court of First Instance of
**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Dioikitiko** 14 December 2000 in so far as it annuls Article 1 of
**Efeteio (Three-member Chamber C) Athens by order of** Decision 98/365/EC on the ground that the Commission
**that court of 26 October 2000 in the case of Makedoniko** should have considered whether, on account of La Poste’s
**Metro v Greek State** reserved rights, the charges applied by that undertaking
for services to its subsidiary were based on costs lower
than those which a private operator with no reserved
**(Case C-57/01)** rights would have had to bear;

— declare that there is no need to refer the case back to the
(2001/C 150/17) Court of First Instance; and give final judgment in the
matter, in accordance with the first paragraph of
Article 54 of the Statute of the Court of Justice;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Dioikitiko Efeteio — in those circumstances, and in so far as the Court of First
(Administrative Court of Appeal), Athens, of 26 October 2000
Instance rejected all the other pleas in law raised by UFEX
which was received at the Court Registry on 9 February 2001, in support of its action for annulment, declare that the
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Makedoniko Metro v
action brought by UFEX contesting Decision 98/365/EC
Greek State on the following questions: was unfounded;

—
in so far as, under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure,
‘Must a change in the composition of an association participat- the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if
ing in procedures for the award of a public-works contract, they have been applied for in the successful party’s
which occurs after submission of tenders and selection of the pleadings, and in so far as the pleadings submitted by
association as the provisional contractor and is tacitly accepted UFEX before the Court of First Instance in support of its
by the awarding authority, be interpreted in such a way as to action for annulment must be rejected, UFEX and the
result in the loss of that association’s right to participate in the other applicants must be regarded as having been unsucprocedure and, by extension, also of its right to, or interest in, cessful in their pleadings, order UFEX and the other
the award of the contract for execution of the works? Is such applicants to pay the costs;
an interpretation consistent with the provisions and spirit of
Directives 93/37/EEC and 89/665/EEC?’ — in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First
Instance for judgment and order UFEX and the other
applicants to bear the costs incurred by Chronopost in
the proceedings both before the Court of First Instance
and the Court of Justice.