This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2005/217/50
Case C-239/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal, Brussels by order of that court of 30 May 2005 in BVBA Management Training en Consultancy v Benelux-Merkenbureau
Case C-239/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal, Brussels by order of that court of 30 May 2005 in BVBA Management Training en Consultancy v Benelux-Merkenbureau
Case C-239/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal, Brussels by order of that court of 30 May 2005 in BVBA Management Training en Consultancy v Benelux-Merkenbureau
ĠU C 217, 3.9.2005, p. 25–25
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
3.9.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 217/25 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal, Brussels by order of that court of 30 May 2005 in BVBA Management Training en Consultancy v Benelux-Merkenbureau
(Case C-239/05)
(2005/C 217/50)
Language of the case: Dutch
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of The Court of Appeal, Brussels of 30 May 2005, received at the Court Registry on 3 June 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between BVBA Management Training en Consultancy and Benelux-Merkenbureau on the following questions:
|
1. |
Is the trade mark authority required, after its examination of all relevant facts and circumstances concerning an absolute ground of refusal, to state in its provisional and in its definitive decision on the application its conclusion in regard to each of the goods and services separately in respect of which trade mark protection is sought? |
|
2. |
May the relevant facts and circumstances to be taken into account by the adjudicating authority in the event of an appeal against the decision of the trade mark authority be different as a result of a lapse of time between the two dates on which the decisions are made or must the adjudicating authority only take account of such facts and circumstances as were available at the moment when the trade mark authority made its decision? |
|
3. |
Does the interpretation by the Court of Justice in the Postkantoor (1) judgment preclude national legislation in regard to the competence of the adjudicating authority from being construed as meaning that that authority is prevented from taking account of any alteration in the relevant facts and circumstances or from ruling on the distinctive character of the mark for each of the goods and services in themselves? |
(1) Case C-363/99, Koninklijke KPN Nederland, dated 12.02.2004.