CELEX: C2003/304/03
Language: en
Date: 2003-12-13 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of 23 October 2003 in Case C-191/01 P: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Absolute ground for refusal to register — Distinctive character — Marks consisting exclusively of descriptive signs or indications — Doublemint)

C 304/2                  EN                              Official Journal of the European Union                                        13.12.2003
Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1),
and on the interpretation of Articles 49 EC and 50 EC, the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans,
President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of                                            of 23 October 2003
the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann, S. von
Bahr and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2003, in which it                       in Case C-191/01 P: Office for Harmonisation in the
has ruled:                                                                       Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v
                                                                                                  Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (1)
                                                                                 (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC)
1.    Consideration of the first part of the question has disclosed no           No 40/94 — Absolute ground for refusal to register —
      factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 22(1)(c)(i)     Distinctive character — Marks consisting exclusively of
      of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June                          descriptive signs or indications — Doublemint)
      1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed
      persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
      families moving within the Community, as amended and
      updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December                                          (2003/C 304/03)
      1996.
                                                                                                    (Language of the case: English)
2.    The second subparagraph of Article 22(2) of Regulation
      No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/
      97, must be interpreted as meaning that the authorisation to
      which that provision refers may not be refused where it is
      apparent, first, that the treatment in question is among the
      benefits provided for by the legislation of the Member State on            In Case C-191/01 P, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      whose territory the person concerned resides and, secondly, that           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: V. Melgar
      treatment which is the same or equally effective cannot be                 and S. Laitinen), with an address for service in Luxembourg,
      obtained without undue delay in that Member State.                         supported by Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: A. Dittrich
                                                                                 and B. Muttelsee-Schön) with an address for service in
                                                                                 Luxembourg, and by United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                                 Northern Ireland (Agent: J. E. Collins, assisted by D. Alexander)
3.    Articles 49 EC and 50 EC must be interpreted as not precluding             with an address for service in Luxembourg: Appeal against the
      legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main           judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
      proceedings, which, first, makes reimbursement of the cost of              Communities (Second Chamber) of 31 January 2001 in Case
      hospital care provided in a Member State other than that in                T-193/99 Wrigley v OHIM (DOUBLEMINT) [2001] ECR II-
      which the insured person’s sickness fund is established con-               417, seeking to have that judgment set aside, in which the
      ditional upon prior authorisation by that fund and, secondly,              Court of First Instance annulled the decision of the First Board
      makes the grant of that authorisation subject to the condition             of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      that it be established that the insured person could not receive           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 June 1999 (Case R
      within the territory of the Member State where the fund is                 216/1998-1) dismissing the appeal brought by Wm. Wrig-
      established the treatment appropriate to his condition. However,           ley Jr. Company against the refusal to register the word
      authorisation may be refused on that ground only if treatment              DOUBLEMINT as a Community trade mark, the other party to
      which is the same or equally effective for the patient can be              the proceedings being: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company, established
      obtained without undue delay in the territory of the Member                in Chicago, Illinois (United States of America), represented by
      State in which he resides.                                                 M. Kinkeldey, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service in
                                                                                 Luxembourg, the Court, composed of: V. Skouris, President,
                                                                                 P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodri-
                                                                                 gues and A. Rosas (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward,
                                                                                 A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen,
                                                                                 F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
(1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.                                                        Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
                                                                                 given a judgment on 23 October 2003, in which it:
                                                                                 1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                                       European Communities of 31 January 2001 in Case T-193/
                                                                                       99 Wrigley v OHIM (DOUBLEMINT);
 ---pagebreak--- 13.12.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 304/3
2.    Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance;                    2.    The connections which must link films in order that they can
                                                                                    come within the exception laid down for ‘series’ by Article 11(3)
3.    Reserves the costs.                                                           of Directive 89/552 must relate to the content of the films
                                                                                    concerned, such as, for example, the development of the same
                                                                                    story from one episode to another or the reappearance of one or
(1) OJ C 200 of 14.07.2001.
                                                                                    more characters in different episodes.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 23 October 2003
                                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-245/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Niedersächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht): RTL
Television GmbH v Niedersächsische Landesmedienan-                                                   of 21 October 2003
                 stalt für privaten Rundfunk (1)
                                                                              In Joined Cases C-261/01 and C-262/01 (Reference for a
(Directive 89/552/EEC — Article 11(3) — Television broad-                     preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwer-
casting — Television advertising — Advertising breaks in                      pen): Belgische Staat v Eugene Van Calster, Felix Cleeren
          audiovisual works — Definition of ‘series’)                         (C-261/01) and between Belgische Staat and Openbaar
                                                                                                Slachthuis NV (C-262/01) (1)
                           (2003/C 304/04)
                                                                              (Aid financed by parafiscal charges — Compulsory charges
                   (Language of the case: German)                             to finance a fund for animal health and livestock production
                                                                              — Retroactive effect of the charges — Validity of a
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        Commission decision concerning State aid — Powers of the
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                        Commission)
                                                                                                        (2003/C 304/05)
In Case C-245/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Niedersächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht (Ger-
many) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                                         (Language of the case: Dutch)
before that court between RTL Television GmbH and Nieder-
sächsische Landesmedienanstalt für privaten Rundfunk, on the
interpretation of Article 11(3) of Council Directive 89/552/                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain                                             in the European Court Reports)
provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative
action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television
broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23), as amended by
Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the                      In Joined Cases C-261/01 and C-262/01: Reference to the
Council of 30 June 1997 (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60), the                           Court under Article 234 EC by the Hof van Beroep te
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans                         Antwerpen (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-
(Rapporteur), President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the                 ings pending before that court between Belgische Staat and
President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and P. Jann,                    Eugene Van Calster, Felix Cleeren (C-261/01) and between
Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal                Belgische Staat and Openbaar Slachthuis NV (C-262/01), on
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                     the interpretation of Community law, in particular of
23 October 2003, in which it has ruled:                                       Article 93 of the EC Treaty (now Article 88 EC) and Article 173
                                                                              of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC) and
1.    Films which have been made for television and which provide,            of the Commission Decision of 9 August 1996 relating to aid
      from their conception, for breaks for the insertion of advertising      measure No N 366/96, the Court, composed of: V. Skouris,
      are covered by the term ‘films made for television’ in                  President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), C. Gul-
      Article 11(3) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October              mann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas (Presidents of
      1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by             Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet,
      law, regulation or administrative action in Member States               R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges;
      concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as        F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
      amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament                Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 October 2003, in which
      and of the Council of 30 June 1997.                                     it has ruled: