CELEX: C1997/142/12
Language: en
Date: 1997-05-10 00:00:00
Title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 20 March 1997 in Case C-352/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce, Pontoise): Phytheron International SA v. Jean Bourdon SA (Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty - Trade Mark Directive - Plant health product - Parallel import - Exhaustion)

No C 142/6              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10 . 5 . 97
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      ( Commercial Court), Pontoise, France, for a preliminary
                          ( Sixth Chamber )                               ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
                                                                          between Phytheron International SA and Jean Bourdon SA
                        of 20 March 1997
                                                                          — on the interpretation of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC
in Case C-323/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 Treaty — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. C.
the Saarlandisches Oberlandesgericht): David Charles                      Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, C.
Hayes and Jeanette Karen Hayes v. Kronenberger GmbH,                      Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet
                          in liquidation ( ! )                            and M. Wathelet, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General;
                                                                          H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has
(Equal treatment — Discrimination on grounds of                           given a judgment on 20 March 1997, in which it has
                nationality — Security for costs)                         ruled :
                            ( 97/C 142/11 )
                                                                          Article 7 of the First Council Directive (89/104/EEC) of
                (Language of the case: German)                            21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                          Member States relating to trade marks is to be interpreted
                                                                          as precluding application of a national rule in Member
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                          State A under which the owner of a trade mark may
In Case C-323/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177               prevent importation of a product protected by the mark
of the EC Treaty from the Saarlandisches Oberlandesge­                    where
richt ( Saarland Higher Regional Court) ( Germany), for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                 — the product has been manufactured in a non-member
court between David Charles Hayes and Jeanette Karen                           country,
Hayes, on the one hand, and Kronenberger GmbH, in
liquidation, on the other — on the interpretation of the                  — it has been imported into Member State B by the
first paragraph of Article 6 of the EC Treaty — the Court                      owner of the mark or by another company in the same
( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President                       group as the owner of the mark,
of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, P. J. G. Kapteyn
( Rapporteur ), G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A.                    — it has been lawfully acquired in Member State B by an
La Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                         independent trader, who has exported it to Member
given a judgment on 20 March 1997, in which it has                             State A,
ruled :
                                                                          — it has not been processed and the packaging has not
Article 6 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted as
                                                                               been changed, apart from the addition to the label of
precluding a Member State from requiring security for                          certain information to comply with the requirements
costs to be furnished by a national of another Member                          of the legislation of the Member State of import, and
State who has brought an action in one of its civil courts
against one of its nationals where that requirement may
                                                                          — the trade mark rights are held in Member States A and
not be imposed on its own nationals who have neither
                                                                               B by the same group.
assets nor a residence in that country, in a situation where
 the action is connected with the exercise of fundamental
                                                                           O OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
freedoms guaranteed by Community law.
 (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             (Fifth Chamber)
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                       of 20 March 1997
                         of 20 March 1997
                                                                          in Case C-13/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-352/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 the Belgian Conseil d'Etat): Bic Benelux SA v. Belgian
 the Tribunal de Commerce, Pontoise ): Phytheron                                                        State (')
            International SA v. Jean Bourdon SA ( l )                      (Obligation to give prior notification under Directive 83/
 (Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty — Trade Mark                         189/EEC — Technical regulations and specifications —
 Directive — Plant health product — Parallel import —                          Marking of products subject to environmental tax)
                               Exhaustion)
                                                                                                    ( 97/C 142/ 13 )
                             ( 97/C 142/12 )
                                                                                          (Language of the case: French)
                 (Language of the case: French)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                                 published in the European Court Reports)
 In Case C-352/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177               In Case C-13/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de Commerce                            of the EC Treaty from the Belgian Conseil d'Etat ( Council