CELEX: C2003/146/10
Language: en
Date: 2003-06-21 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of 6 May 2003 in Case C-104/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Libertel Groep BV v Benelux-Merkenbureau, (Trade marks — Approximation of laws — Directive 89/104/EEC — Signs capable of constituting a trade mark— Distinctive character — Colour per se — Orange)

C 146/6                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             21.6.2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      1.    Declares that since the Municipality of Bockhorn (Germany)
                                                                                   failed to invite tenders for the award of the contract for the
                                                                                   collection of its waste water and failed to publish notice of the
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                         results of the procedure for the award of the contract in the
                                                                                   Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Communi-
                          of 10 April 2003                                         ties, the Federal Republic of Germany, at the time of the award
                                                                                   of that public service contract, failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                   under Article 8 in conjunction with Article 15(2) and
In Joined Cases C-20/01 and C-28/01: Commission of the                             Article 16(1) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)                             1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award
                                                                                   of public service contracts;
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Admissibility — Legal interest in bringing proceedings —                     2.    Declares that since the City of Braunschweig (Germany)
Directive 92/50/EEC — Procedures for the award of public                           awarded a contract for waste disposal by negotiated procedure
service contracts — Negotiated procedure without prior                             without prior publication of a contract notice, although the
        publication of a contract notice — Conditions)                             criteria laid down in Article 11(3) of Directive 92/50 for an
                                                                                   award by privately negotiated procedure without a Community-
                                                                                   wide invitation to tender had not been met, the Federal Republic
                           (2003/C 146/09)                                         of Germany, at the time of the award of that public service
                                                                                   contract, failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 and
                    (Language of the case: German)                                 Article 11(3)(b) of that directive;
                                                                             3.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                           4.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                   Ireland to bear its own costs.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
In Joined Cases C-20/01 and C-28/01, Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: J. Schieferer) v Federal Repub-
lic of Germany (Agent: W.-D. Plessing, assisted by H.-J. Prieß)
supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill, assisted by R. Williams, barrister):
Applications for declarations that:
                                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
—     by failing to invite tenders for the award of the contract
      for the collection of waste water in the Municipality of
      Bockhorn (Germany) and to publish notice of the results                                             of 6 May 2003
      of the procedure for the award of the contract in the
      Supplement to the Official Journal of the European                     in Case C-104/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
      Communities, the Federal Republic of Germany, at the                   the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Libertel Groep BV v
      time of the award of that public service contract, failed to                                Benelux-Merkenbureau, (1)
      fulfil its obligations under Article 8 in conjunction with
      Article 15(2) and Article 16(1) of Council Directive 92/
      50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of                 (Trade marks — Approximation of laws — Directive 89/
      procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ               104/EEC — Signs capable of constituting a trade mark—
      1992 L 209, p. 1);                                                            Distinctive character — Colour per se — Orange)
—     at the time of the award of a public service contract, the                                         (2003/C 146/10)
      Federal Republic of Germany failed to fulfil its obligations
      under Article 8 and Article 11(3)(b) of Directive 92/50                                      (Language of the case: Dutch)
      by virtue of the fact that the City of Braunschweig
      (Germany) awarded a contract for waste disposal by
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      negotiated procedure without prior publication of a
                                                                                                  in the European Court Reports)
      contract notice, although the criteria laid down by
      Article 11(3) for an award of a contract by privately
      negotiated procedure without a Community-wide invi-
      tation to tender had not been met,                                     In Case C-104/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                             EC by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, Presi-                  preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
dent of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann                 court between Libertel Groep BV and Benelux-Merkenbureau,
(Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges; L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate                  on the interpretation of Article 3 of First Council Directive 89/
General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                 104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of
given a judgment on 10 April 2003, in which it:                              the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40,
 ---pagebreak--- 21.6.2003                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 146/7
p. 1), the Court, composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Sixth Chamber, acting for the President, M. Wathelet and
C. W. A. Timmermans, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann,
D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann, F. Macken, S. von Bahr and                                                      (Fifth Chamber)
J. N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-                                             of 8 May 2003
trar, has given a judgment on 6 May 2003, in which it has
ruled:
                                                                               in Case C-111/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                               the Oberster Gerichtshof): Gantner Electronic GmbH v
                                                                                            Basch Exploitatie Maatschappij BV ( 1)
1.    A colour per se, not spatially delimited, may, in respect of
      certain goods and services, have a distinctive character within
      the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(3) of First Council         (Brussels Convention — Article 21 — Lis pendens — Set-
      Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate                                                     off)
      the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, provided
      that, inter alia, it may be represented graphically in a way that                                   (2003/C 146/11)
      is clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible,
      durable and objective. The latter condition cannot be satisfied
      merely by reproducing on paper the colour in question, but may                               (Language of the case: German)
      be satisfied by designating that colour using an internationally
      recognised identification code.                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                                   in the European Court Reports)
2.    In assessing the potential distinctiveness of a given colour as a
      trade mark, regard must be had to the general interest in not
      unduly restricting the availability of colours for the other traders
      who offer for sale goods or services of the same type as those in        In Case C-111/01: Reference to the Court under the Protocol
      respect of which registration is sought.                                 of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of
                                                                               the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
                                                                               Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
3.    A colour per se may be found to possess distinctive character            by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
      within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(3) of                in the proceedings pending before that court between Gantner
      Directive 89/104, provided that, as regards the perception of            Electronic GmbH and Basch Exploitatie Maatschappij BV,
      the relevant public, the mark is capable of identifying the              on the interpretation of Article 21 of the abovementioned
      product or service for which registration is sought as originating       Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32), as
      from a particular undertaking and distinguishing that product            amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the
      or service from those of other undertakings.                             accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
                                                                               Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978
                                                                               L 304, p. 1, and — amended text — p. 77), by the Convention
4.    The fact that registration as a trade mark of a colour per se is         of 25 October 1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic
      sought for a large number of goods or services, or for a specific        (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on
      product or service or for a specific group of goods or services, is      the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
      relevant, together with all the other circumstances of the               Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1) and by the Convention of
      particular case, to assessing both the distinctive character of the      29 November 1996 on the accession of the Republic of
      colour in respect of which registration is sought, and whether           Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden
      its registration would run counter to the general interest in not        (OJ 1997 C 15, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
      unduly limiting the availability of colours for the other operators      of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
      who offer for sale goods or services of the same type as those in        C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, P. Jann and S. von Bahr,
      respect of which registration is sought.                                 Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
                                                                               Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                               8 May 2003, in which it has ruled:
5.    In assessing whether a trade mark has distinctive character
      within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and Article 3(3) of
      Directive 89/104, the competent authority for registering trade          Article 21 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction
      marks must carry out an examination by reference to the actual           and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters,
      situation, taking account of all the circumstances of the case           as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession
      and in particular any use which has been made of the mark.               of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
                                                                               Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October
                                                                               1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention
                                                                               of 26 May 1989 on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the
( 1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.                                                    Portuguese Republic, and by the Convention of 29 November 1996
                                                                               on the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland
                                                                               and the Kingdom of Sweden, must be construed as meaning that, in
                                                                               order to determine whether two claims brought between the same
                                                                               parties before the courts of different Contracting States have the same