CELEX: C2000/079/10
Language: en
Date: 2000-03-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-415/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Patent Court), by order of that court of 22 July 1999, in the case of 1) Levi Strauss & Co. (a US corporation existing under the laws of the State of Delaware) and 2) Levi Strauss (UK) Ltd against 1) Tesco Stores Ltd and 2) Tesco plc

18.3.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 79/5
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              2. If the answer to question 1 is that consent may be implied,
                                                                            is consent to be implied from the fact that the goods have
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                  been sold by the proprietor or on his behalf without
    and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                  contractual restrictions prohibiting re-sale within the EEA
    Directive 96/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the                binding the first and all subsequent purchasers?
    Council of 28 October 1996 amending Council Directive
    80/777/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the
    Member States relating to the exploitation and marketing             3. Where goods bearing a registered trade mark have been
    of natural mineral waters (1), and by failing to notify them            placed on the market in a non-EEA country by the trade
    to the Commission, the Republic of Austria has failed to                mark proprietor:
    fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                            A. to what extent is it relevant to or determinative of the
2. Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                               issue of whether or not there was consent by the
                                                                                 proprietor to the placing of those goods on the market
                                                                                 within the EEA, within the meaning of the Directive,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  that:
The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in                       (a) the person placing the goods on the market (not
Case C-386/99 (2); the period prescribed in Article 2 of the                         being an authorised retailer) does so with the
directive expired on 28 October 1997.                                                knowledge that he is the lawful owner of the goods
                                                                                     and the goods bear no indication that they may
                                                                                     not be placed on the market in the EEA; and/or
(1) OJ L 299 of 23.11.1996, p. 26.
(2) OJ C 366, 18.12.1999, p. 20.
                                                                                 (b) the person placing the goods on the market
                                                                                     (not being an authorised retailer) does so with
                                                                                     knowledge that the trade mark proprietor objects
                                                                                     to those goods being placed on the market within
                                                                                     the EEA, and/or
                                                                                 (c) the person placing the goods on the market (not
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                              being an authorised retailer) does so with the
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Patent                                 knowledge that the trade mark proprietor objects
Court), by order of that court of 22 July 1999, in the case                          to them being placed on the market by anyone
of 1) Levi Strauss & Co. (a US corporation existing under                            otherwise than an authorised retailer; and/or
the laws of the State of Delaware) and 2) Levi Strauss
   (UK) Ltd against 1) Tesco Stores Ltd and 2) Tesco plc                         (d) the goods have been purchased from authorised
                                                                                     retailers in a non-EEA country who have been
                         (Case C-415/99)                                             informed by the proprietor that the proprietor
                                                                                     objects to the sale of the goods by them for the
                                                                                     purposes of resale, but who have not imposed
                          (2000/C 79/10)                                             upon purchasers from them any contractual restric-
                                                                                     tions on the manner in which the goods may be
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                               disposed of; and/or
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Patent Court),                     (e) the goods have been purchased from authorised
of 22 July 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on                         wholesalers in non-EEA country, who have been
29 October 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of 1)                          informed by the proprietor that the goods were to
Levi Strauss & Co. (a US corporation existing under the laws                         be sold to retailers in that non-EEA country and
of the State of Delaware) and 2) Levi Strauss (UK) Ltd against                       were not to be sold for export, but who have
1) Tesco Stores Ltd and 2) Tesco plc, on the following                               not imposed upon purchasers from them any
questions:                                                                           contractual restrictions on the manner in which
                                                                                     the goods may be disposed of; and/or
1. Where goods bearing a registered trade mark have been
    placed on the market in a non-EEA country by the trade
    mark proprietor or with his consent and those goods have                     (f) there has or has not been communication by the
    been imported into or sold in the EEA by a third party, is                       proprietor to all subsequent purchasers of its goods
    the effect of Directive 89/104/EEC(1) (‘the Directive’) that                     (i.e. those between the first purchaser from the
    the trade mark proprietor is entitled to prohibit such                           proprietor and the person placing the goods on the
    importation or sale unless he has expressly and explicitly                       market in the EEA) of its objection to the sale of
    consented to it, or may such consent be implied?                                 the goods for the purposes of resale; and/or
 ---pagebreak--- C 79/6                   EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18.3.2000
          (g) a contractual restriction has or has not been            the Court Registry on 20 December 1999, for a preliminary
              imposed by the proprietor and made legally bind-         ruling in the case of Georg and Helga Heininger against
              ing upon the first purchaser prohibiting sale for        Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG on the following
              the purposes of resale to anyone other than the          questions:
              ultimate consumer.
                                                                       1. Does Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985
     B. does the issue of whether or not there was consent by               to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated
          the proprietor to the placing of those goods on the               away from business premises (OJ 1985 L 372, p. 31 —
          market within the EEA. within the meaning of the                  ‘directive on doorstep-selling’ also cover mortgages on
          Directive, depend on some further or other factor or              land (S.3(2)(2) of the Verbraucherkreditgesetz — consumer
          factors, and if so which?                                         credit law) and, as regards the right of cancellation provided
                                                                            for in Article 5, does it take precedence over Council
(1) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to               Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the
    approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade             approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative
    marks (OJ L 40 of 11. 2.1 989, p. 1).                                   provisions of the Member States concerning consumer
                                                                            credit (OJ 1987 L 42, p. 48 ‘consumer-credit directive’)?
                                                                       2. If the Court answers Question 1 in the affirmative,
                                                                            Is the national legislature precluded by the directive on
                                                                            doorstep-selling from applying the time-limit placed in
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                     S. 7(2)(3) of the consumer credit law on the right of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Patent                        cancellation also in cases where the subject-matter of a
Court), by order of that court of 22 July 1999, in the case                 doorstep transaction was the grant of a mortgage loan
of 1) Levi Strauss & Co. (a US corporation existing under                   within the meaning of S. 3(2)(2) of the consumer credit
the laws of the State of Delaware) and 2) Levi Strauss                      law and where the disclosure of information, as provided
                 (UK) Ltd against Costco UK Ltd                             for in Article 4 of the directive, was not made?
                           (Case C-416/99)
                            (2000/C 79/11)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Patent Court),           Action brought on 21 December 1999 by the Commission
of 22 July 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on           of the European Communities against the French Republic
29 October 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of 1)
Levi Strauss & Co. (a US corporation existing under the laws                                     (Case C-483/99)
of the State of Delaware) and 2) Levi Strauss (UK) Ltd against
Costco UK Ltd on questions which are identical to those in
                                                                                                  (2000/C 79/13)
Case   C-415/99 (1),   1) Levi Strauss & Co. (a US corporation
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware) and 2) Levi          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Strauss (UK) Ltd against 1) Tesco Stores Ltd and 2) Tesco plc.         Court of Justice on 21 December 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia, of
                                                                       its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
(1) See p. 5 of this Official journal.
                                                                       in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                       Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       (1) declare that, by maintaining in force Articles 2(1) and
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-                   (2)(iii) of Decree 93-1298 of 13 December 1993, accord-
hof by order of that court of 30 November 1999 in the                       ing to which the following rights attach to the ‘golden
case of Georg and Helga Heininger against Bayerische                        share’ held by the French State in the State company
                   Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG                                 Elf-Aquitaine:
                           (Case C-481/99)                                  (a) any shareholding which exceeds the ceilings applying
                                                                                 to the direct or indirect holding by a natural or legal
                            (2000/C 79/12)                                       person, acting alone or in conjunction with others, of
                                                                                 one tenth, one fifth or one third of the capital of, or
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           voting rights in, the company must first be approved
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof                           by the Minister for Economic Affairs (Article 2(1) of
(Federal Supreme Court) of 30 November 1999, received at                         the Decree);