CELEX: C1997/166/06
Language: en
Date: 1997-05-31 00:00:00
Title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 4 March 1997 in Case C-46/96: Federal Republic of Germany v. Commission of the European Communities (No need to give a decision)

No C 166/4           | EN 1                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       31 . 5 . 97
which had itself prolonged the validity of the Community                References for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht
framework on State aid to the motor vehicle industry —                  München I by orders of that court of 8 January 1997 in
the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. E Mancini,                  the cases of WSC Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions- und
President of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.                      Vertriebs GmbH v. Boots- und Segelzubehör Walter Huber
Kapteyn, G. Hirsch and R. Schintgen ( Rapporteur),                      and WSC Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions- und Ver­
Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-                                     triebs GmbH v. Franz Attenberger
Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                                   ( Cases C-108/97 and C-109/97)
given a judgment on 15 April 1997, in which it:
                                                                                                     ( 97/C 166/07 )
1 . annuls the Commission 's decision, notified by letter of
      6 July 1995, to prolong, with retroactive effect from             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      1 January 1995, the Commission decision of                        European Communities by two orders of the Landgericht
      23 December 1992 which had itself prolonged the                   München I ( Munich I Regional Court) of 8 January 1997,
      validity of the Community framework on State aid to               which were received at the Court Registry on 14 March
      the motor vehicle industry;                                       1997, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of WSC
                                                                        Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH
                                                                        v. Boots- und Segelzubehör Walter Huber and WSC
2. orders the Commission to pay the costs.                              Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions- und Vertriebs GmbH
                                                                        v. Franz Attenberger on the following questions:
0 ) OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 .
                                                                        1 . Questions on Article 3 ( 1 ) (c ) ('):
                                                                             Is Article 3 ( 1 ) (c ) to be understood as meaning that it
                                                                             suffices if there is a possibility of the designation being
                                                                             used to indicate the geographical origin, or must that
                   ORDER OF THE COURT                                        possibility be likely in the particular case ( in the sense
                          of 4 March 1997                                    that other such undertakings already use that word to
                                                                             designate the geographical origin of their goods of
in Case C-46/96: Federal Republic of Germany v.                              similar type, or at least that there are specific reasons
         Commission of the European Communities ( J )                        to believe that that may be expected in the foreseeable
                   (No need to give a decision)                              future ), or must there even be a need to use that
                                                                             designation to indicate the geographical origin of the
                             ( 97/C 166/06 )                                 goods in question, or must there in addition also be a
                                                                             qualified need for the use of that indication of origin,
                (Language of the case: German)                               for instance because goods of that kind, produced in
                                                                             that region, enjoy a special reputation ?
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                          Is it of significance for a broader or narrower
                                                                             interpretation of Article 3 ( 1 ) (c ) with respect to
                                                                             geographical indications of origin that the effects of
 In Case C-46/96 : Federal Republic of Germany ( Agent:                      the mark are restricted under Article 6 ( 1 ) ( b )?
 Ernst Röder) against Commission of the European
 Communities ( Agents: Anders Christian Jessen and Paul F.                   Do geographical indications of origin under Article 3
 Nemitz, with Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch )                        ( 1 ) (c ) cover only those which relate to the
 — application for annulment of Decision C(95 ) 3319 final                   manufacture of the goods at that place, or does trade
 of the Commission of 29 November 1995 concerning                            in those goods at that place or from that place suffice,
 fiscal aid in the field of depreciation favouring German                    or in the case of the production of textiles does it
 undertakings — the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez                       suffice if they are designed in the region designated
 Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de                        but then manufactured under contract elsewhere ?
 Almeida, J. L. Murray and L. Sevón ( Presidents of
 Chambers ), J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann
 ( Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R.                         2 . Questions on the first sentence of Article 3 (3):
 Schintgen, Judges; Advocate-General, D. Ruiz-Jarabo
 Colomer; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 4 March                      What requirements follow from this provision for the
 1997, the operative part of which is as follows :                            registrability of a descriptive designation under
                                                                              Article 3 ( 1 ) ( c )?
 1 . There is no need to give a decision.
                                                                              In particular, are the requirements the same in all
                                                                              cases, or are the requirements different according to
 2 . The Commission shall pay the costs.                                      the degree of the need to leave free ?
  (') OJ No C 108 , 13 . 4 . 1996 .                                           Is in particular the view hitherto taken in the German
                                                                              case-law, namely that in the case of descriptive
                                                                               designations which need to be left free, trade