CELEX: C2001/118/10
Language: en
Date: 2001-04-21 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of 14 December 2000 in Joined Cases C-300/98 and C-392/98 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank 's-Gravenhage and the Hoge Raad Der Nederlanden): Parfums Christian Dior SA v Tuk Consultancy BV (C-300/98), and Assco Gerüste GmbH and Rob van Dĳk, trading as "Assco Holland Steigers Plettac Nederland" v Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co. KG and Layher BV C-392/98 (Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation — TRIPs Agreement — Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) — Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice — Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement — Provisional measures — Interpretation — Direct effect)

21.4.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 118/7
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          particular Article 177 thereof (now Article 234 EC), the Court
                                                                                 of Justice has jurisdiction to interpret Article 50 of the TRIPs
                       of 14 December 2000                                       Agreement.
                                                                           2.    In a field to which the TRIPs Agreement applies and in respect
in Joined Cases C-300/98 and C-392/98 (references for a                          of which the Community has already legislated, the judicial
preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank                             authorities of the Member States are required by virtue of
’s-Gravenhage and the Hoge Raad Der Nederlanden):                                Community law, when called upon to apply national rules with
Parfums Christian Dior SA v Tuk Consultancy BV                                   a view to ordering provisional measures for the protection of
(C-300/98), and Assco Gerüste GmbH and Rob van Dijk,                             rights falling within such a field, to do so as far as possible in
trading as ‘Assco Holland Steigers Plettac Nederland’                            the light of the wording and purpose of Article 50 of the TRIPs
v Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co. KG and Layher BV                                     Agreement.
                             (C-392/98) (1)
                                                                                 In a field in which the Community has not yet legislated and
(Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation —                           which consequently falls within the competence of the Member
TRIPs Agreement — Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now                              States, the protection of intellectual property rights, and
Article 234 EC) — Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice —                         measures adopted for that purpose by the judicial authorities,
Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement — Provisional measures                         do not fall within the scope of Community law. Accordingly,
                — Interpretation — Direct effect)                                Community law neither requires nor forbids that the legal order
                                                                                 of a Member State should accord to individuals the right to rely
                                                                                 directly on the rule laid down by Article 50(6) of the TRIPs
                           (2001/C 118/10)                                       Agreement or that it should oblige the courts to apply that rule
                                                                                 of their own motion.
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                         3.    Article 50 of the TRIPs Agreement leaves to the Contracting
                                                                                 Parties, within the framework of their own legal systems, the
                                                                                 task of specifying whether the right to sue under general
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published           provisions of national law concerning wrongful acts, in particu-
                    in the European Court Reports)                               lar unlawful competition, in order to protect an industrial
                                                                                 design against copying is to be classified as an ‘Intellectual
In Joined Cases C-300/98 and C-392/98: references to the                         property right’ within the meaning of Article 50(1) of the
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article                            TRIPs Agreement.
234 EC) from the Arrondissementsrechtbank ’s-Gravenhage
(Netherlands) (C-300/98) and the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden                 (1) OJ C 229 of 26.9.1998.
(Netherlands) (C-392/98) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before those courts between Parfums
Christian Dior SA and Tuk Consultancy BV (C-300/98) and
between Assco Gerüste GmbH and Rob van Dijk, trading as
‘Assco Holland Steigers Plettac Nederland’, and Wilhelm Layher
GmbH & Co. KG and Layher BV (C-392/98) — on the
interpretation of Article 50 of the Agreement on Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, as set out in Annex 1 C                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation,
approved on behalf of the Community, as regards matters
within its competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of                                           of 14 December 2000
22 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 1) — the Court,
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann,              in Case C-344/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Presidents of                   the Supreme Court (Ireland)): Masterfoods Ltd v HB Ice
Chambers), D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet,                   Cream Ltd and HB Ice Cream Ltd v Masterfoods Ltd,
P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges;                                        trading as ‘Mars Ireland’ (1)
G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 December 2000, in                    (Competition — Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now
which it has ruled:                                                        Articles 81 EC and 82 EC) — Parallel proceedings before
                                                                                            national and Community courts)
1.    Where the judicial authorities of the Member States are called
      upon to order provisional measures for the protection of
      intellectual property rights falling within the scope of the                                   (2001/C 118/11)
      Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
      Rights (the TRIPs Agreement), as set out in Annex 1 C to
      the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation,                                  (Language of the case: English)
      approved on behalf of the Community, as regards matters
      within its competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of              In Case C-344/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
      22 December 1994, and a case is brought before the Court of          the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Supreme Court
      Justice in accordance with. the provisions of the EC Treaty, in      (Ireland) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending