CELEX: C1999/246/04
Language: en
Date: 1999-08-28 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 June 1999 in Case C-166/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Foix): Société Critouridienne de Distribution (Socridis) v Receveur Principal des Douanes (Internal taxation - Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC) - Directives 92/83/EEC and 92/84/EEC - Different taxation of wine and beer)

28.8.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 246/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                                      of 22 June 1999
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                           in Case C-342/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                          of 17 June 1999                                  the Landgericht München I): Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer &
                                                                                           Co. GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV (1)
in Case C-166/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling                       (Directive 89/104/EEC — Trade mark law — Likelihood of
from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Foix): Société                                       confusion — Aural similarity)
Critouridienne de Distribution (Socridis) v Receveur
                     Principal des Douanes (1)
                                                                                                      (1999/C 246/05)
(Internal taxation — Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Article 90 EC) — Directives 92/83/EEC and                                           (Language of the case: German)
     92/84/EEC — Different taxation of wine and beer)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                          (1999/C 246/04)                                                      in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-342/97: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                    (Language of the case: French)                         (ex Article 177) from the Landgericht München I (Munich I
                                                                           Regional Court), Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                           proceedings pending before that court between Lloyd Schuhfa-
                                                                           brik Meyer & Co. GmbH and Klijsen Handel BV — on the
                                                                           interpretation of Article 5(1)(b) of First Council Directive
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws
                   in the European Court Reports)                          of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40,
                                                                           p. 1) — the Court, composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President
                                                                           of the Fourth and Sixth Chambers, acting as President,
In Case C-166/98: Reference to the Court under Article 234                 J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers, G.F. Man-
EC (ex Article 177) by the Tribunal de Grande Instance de                  cini, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
Foix, France, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                  D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
pending before that court between Société Critouridienne de                Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
Distribution (Socridis) and Receveur Principal des Douanes —               on 22 June 1999, in which it has ruled:
on the validity of Council, Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October
1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties
on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21)                  It is possible that mere aural similarity between trace marks may
and Council Directive 92/84/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the                  create a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 5(1)(b)
approximation of the rates of excise duty on alcohol and                   of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 29) — the Court (Fifth              approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks.
Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the                  The more similar the goods or services covered and the more distinctive
Chamber, P. Jann, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward and M. Wathe-                  the earlier mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion. In
let (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von              determining the distinctive character of a mark and, accordingly, in
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a                 assessing whether it is highly distinctive, it is necessary to make a
judgment on 17 June 1999, in which it ruled:                               global assessment of the greater or lesser capacity of the mark to
                                                                           identify the goods or services for which it has been registered as
                                                                           coming from a particular undertaking, and thus to distinguish those
                                                                           goods or services from those of other undertakings. In making that
Consideration of the question referred has disclosed no factor capable     assessment, account should be taken of all relevant factors and, in
of affecting the validity of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19             particular, of the inherent characteristics of the mark, including the
October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties       fact that it does or does not contain an element descriptive of the
on alcohol and alcoholic beverages and Council Directive 92/84/EEC         goods or services for which it has been registered. It is not possible to
of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise duty        state in general terms, for example by referring to given percentages
on alcohol and alcoholic beverages.                                        relating to the degree of recognition attained by the mark within the
                                                                           relevant section of the public, when a mark has a strong distinctive
                                                                           character.
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.