CELEX: C2000/047/18
Language: en
Date: 2000-02-19 00:00:00
Title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 November 1999 in Case C-431/98 P: Nicolaos Progoulis v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Manifestly inadmissible and unfounded appeal)

19.2.2000             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 47/11
                   ORDER OF THE COURT                                    1. IV.(a) Must the Benelux Trade Mark Office which, under
                                                                            the Protocol of 2 December 1992 amending the uniform
                        (First Chamber)                                     Benelux law on trade marks (Trb. 1993, 12) (‘BMW’), is
                                                                            charged with assessment of applications for registration
                                                                            on the strict grounds as laid down in Article 3(1) in
                     of 18 November 1999
                                                                            conjunction with Article 2 of the First Council Directive
                                                                            89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the
in Case C-431/98 P: Nicolaos Progoulis v Commission of                      laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ
                the European Communities (1)                                1989 L 40, p. 1), have regard not only to the sign as per
                                                                            the application for registration but to all relevant facts and
 (Appeal — Manifestly inadmissible and unfounded appeal)                    circumstances known to it including those of which it was
                                                                            informed by the applicant (for example that the applicant
                         (2000/C 47/18)                                     prior to the application already used the sign on a large
                                                                            scale as a trade mark of the relevant product or that it
                                                                            appears on inquiry that the sign intended for the goods
                   (Language of the case: French)                           and/or services mentioned in the application will not be
                                                                            capable of misleading the public)?
In Case C-431/98 P: Nicolaos Progoulis, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-
sels (Belgium), represented by K. Adamantopoulos and V. Akri-
tidis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service in                 2. V. Does the reply to Question IV (a) apply also to the
Luxembourg at the Chambers of E. Arendt and C. Medernach,                   assessment of the Benelux Trade Marks Office concerning
8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt — appeal against the order of the                    the question whether its objections to registration of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First                  application have been lifted, as well as to its decision to
Chamber) of 21 September 1998 in Case T-237/97 Progoulis                    refuse registration in whole or in part, as provided for in
v Commission [1998] ECR-SC 1-A-521 and II-1569, seeking                     Article 6 bis (4) of the BMW?
to have that order set aside, the other party to the proceedings
being the Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
J. Currall, assisted by B. Wägenbaur) — the Court (First
Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón (Rapporteur), President of              3. VI. Does the reply to Question IV (a) also apply to the
the Chamber, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola,                judicial assessment of the application referred to in
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                 Article 6 ter of the BMW?
18 November 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
                                                                         4. IX. (a) In light of the provisions of Article 6(5) B(2) of the
2. Mr Nicolaos Progoulis is ordered to pay the costs.                       Treaty of Paris, do the marks which under Article 3(1)(c)
                                                                            of the directive are not to be registered or, if registered,
(1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.                                                   may be declared invalid, also include marks consisting of
                                                                            signs or names which may serve in commerce to indicate
                                                                            the brand, quality, quantity, designation, value, place of
                                                                            origin or date of manufacture of the goods or provisions
                                                                            of the service or other characteristics of the goods or
                                                                            services even if that configuration is not the only or most
                                                                            usual indication? Does it make any difference in that
                                                                            connection whether there are many or only a few competi-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te
                                                                            tors who may have an interest in using such indications
’s-Gravenhage by order of that court of 3 June 1999 in
                                                                            (cf. judgment of the Benelux Court of 19 January 1981, NJ
the case of Koninklijke KPN Nederland NV, formerly
                                                                            1981, 294, in P. Ferrero & Co S.p.A v Alfred Ritter
known as Koninklijke PTT Nederland NV, v The Benelux
                                                                            Schokoladefabrik GmbH (Kinder)).
                      Trade Marks Office
                        (Case C-363/99)
                                                                            Is it also relevant that under Article 13C of the BMW the
                         (2000/C 47/19)                                     right to a trade mark expressed in one of the national or
                                                                            regional languages of the Benelux area automatically
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      extends to its translation in another of those languages?
European Communities by order of the Gerechtshof te
’s-Gravenhage (Regional Court of Appeal, The Hague) of
3 June 1999, received at the Court Registry on 1 October
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Koninklijke KPN            5. X. (a) In the assessment of the question whether a sign
Nederland NV, formerly known as Koninklijke PTT Nederland                   consisting of a (new) word made up of components, which
NV, v The Benelux Trade Marks Office on the following                       in themselves have no distinctive character in regard to the
questions:                                                                  goods or services for which the application is made,