CELEX: C2005/217/58
Language: en
Date: 2005-09-03 00:00:00
Title: Case C-276/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that court of 24 May 2005 in The Wellcome Foundation Ltd. v Paranova Pharmazeutika Handels GmbH

3.9.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 217/29
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that court of 24 May 2005 in The Wellcome Foundation Ltd. v Paranova Pharmazeutika Handels GmbH
   (Case C-276/05)
   (2005/C 217/58)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria) of 24 May 2005, received at the Court Registry on 6 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between The Wellcome Foundation Ltd. and Paranova Pharmazeutika Handels GmbH on the following questions:
   
               1.
            
            
               
                           a.
                        
                        
                           Are Article 7 of the Trade Marks Directive [First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks] (1) and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities which has been pronounced on it to be interpreted as meaning that proof that reliance on the trade mark would contribute to an artificial partitioning of the market must be furnished not only as regards the repackaging in itself, but also as regards the presentation of the new packaging?
                        
                     If the answer to this question is in the negative:
               
                           b.
                        
                        
                           Is the presentation of the new packaging to be measured against the principle of minimum intervention or (only) against whether it is such as to damage the reputation of the trade mark and its proprietor?
                        
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               Are Article 7 of the Trade Marks Directive and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities which has been pronounced on it to be interpreted as meaning that the parallel importer fulfils his duty of notification only if he informs the proprietor of the trade mark also of the state of export and the precise reasons for the repackaging?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.