CELEX: C2000/079/01
Language: en
Date: 2000-03-18 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 January 2000 in Case C-220/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln): Estée Lauder Cosmetics GmbH & Co. OHG v Lancaster Group GmbH (Free movement of goods — Marketing of a cosmetic product whose name includes the term lifting — Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 30 EC)— Directive 76/768/EEC)

18.3.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 79/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            consumer, reasonably well informed and reasonably observant
                                                                                  and circumspect, is misled by that name, believing it to imply
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                         that the product possesses characteristics which it does not have.
                        of 13 January 2000                                   — It is for the national court to decide, having regard to the
                                                                                  presumed expectations of the average consumer, whether the
                                                                                  name is misleading.
in Case C-220/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Landgericht Köln): Estée Lauder Cosmetics GmbH &                         — Community law does not preclude the national court, should it
            Co. OHG v Lancaster Group GmbH (1)                                    experience particular difficulty in deciding whether or not the
                                                                                  name at issue is misleading, from commissioning, in accordance
(Free movement of goods — Marketing of a cosmetic product                         with its national law, a survey of public opinion or an expert
whose name includes the term lifting — Articles 30 and 36                         opinion for the purposes of clarification.
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and
                30 EC) — Directive 76/768/EEC)
                                                                             (1) JO C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                           (2000/C 79/01)
                   (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
In Case C-220/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Landgericht Köln,                                           (Fifth Chamber)
Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Estée Lauder Cosmetics GmbH &                                               of 13 January 2000
Co. OHG and Lancaster Group GmbH — on the interpretation
of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) and Article 6(3) of Council Directive              in Case C-254/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws                  from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Schutzverband gegen
of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (OJ 1976                   unlauteren Wettbewerb v TK-Heimdienst Sass GmbH (1)
L 262, p. 169), as amended by Council Directive 88/667/EEC
of 21 December 1988 (OJ 1988 L 382, p. 46) and Council                       (Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 151, p. 32)                   Article 28 EC) — Sale on rounds of baker’s, butcher’s and
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward,                                  grocer’s wares — Territorial restriction)
President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rappor-
teur), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; N. Fen-                                         (2000/C 79/02)
nelly, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 January 2000,
in which it has ruled:                                                                          (Language of the case: German)
— Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty (now, after amendment,
    Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) and Article 6(3) of Council Directive          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
    76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws                                  in the European Court Reports)
    of the Member States relating to cosmetic products, as amended
    by Council Directive 88/667/EEC of 21 December 1988 and                  In Case C-278/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
    Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993, do not preclude             the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Oberster
    the application of national legislation which prohibits the              Gerichtshof, Austria, for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-
    importation and marketing of a cosmetic product whose name               ings pending before that court between Schutzverband gegen
    incorporates the term ‘lifting’ in cases where the average               unlauteren Wettbewerb and TK-Heimdienst Sass GmbH — on