You are on page 1of 1

C 69/10 EN Official Journal of the European Union 21.3.

2009

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 January Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December
2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the 2008 — Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 v Office for
Kammarrätten i Stockholm, Migrationsöverdomstolen, Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Sweden) — Migrationsverket v Edgar Petrosian, Nelli Designs), TDK Kabushiki Kaisha (TDK Corp.)
Petrosian, Svetlana Petrosian, David Petrosian, Maxime
Petrosian
(Case C-197/07 P) (1)
1
(Case C-19/08) ( )
(Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC)
(Right of asylum — Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 — Taking
No 40/94 — Article 8(5) — Reputation — Taking unfair
back by a Member State of an asylum seeker whose applica-
advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the
tion has been refused and who is in another Member State
earlier mark — Application for registration as a Community
where he has submitted a fresh asylum application — Start of
trade mark of the word mark ‘TDK’ — Opposition by the
the period for implementation of transfer of the asylum seeker
proprietor of the Community and national word and figurative
— Transfer procedure the subject-matter of an appeal having
marks TDK — Refusal to register)
suspensive effect)

(2009/C 69/15) (2009/C 69/16)


Language of the case: Swedish
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Kammarrätten i Stockholm, Migrationsöverdomstolen


Parties
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 (represented by:
Applicant: Migrationsverket C. Barrett Christiansen, advokat)
Defendants: Edgar Petrosian, Nelli Petrosian, Svetlana Petrosian,
David Petrosian, Maxime Petrosian Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G.
Schneider, Agent), TDK Kabushiki Kaisha (TDK Corp.) (repre-
Re: sented by: A. Norris, Barrister)
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Kammarrätten i Stock-
holm, Migrationsöverdomstolen (Sweden) — Interpretation of
Articles 20(1)(d) and 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003
of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms Re:
for determining the Member State responsible for examining an
asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a Appeal brought against the judgment of the First Chamber of
third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1) — Taking back by a the Court of First Instance of 6 February 2007 in Case
Member State of an applicant for asylum who is in another T-477/04 Aktieselskabet af 21. November 2001 v OHIM
Member State and lodged another application for asylum there dismissing as unfounded an action brought by the applicant for
— Start of the period for transfer of the asylum seeker the word mark ‘TDK’ for goods in Class 25 against Decision
R 364/2003-1 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of
7 October 2004 rejecting the appeal brought against the Oppo-
Operative part of the judgment sition Division refusing registration of that mark in the context
of opposition proceeding brought by the proprietor of the Com-
Article 20(1)(d) and Article 20(2) of Regulation No 343/2003 of
munity and national word and figurative marks ‘TDK’
Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 estab-
lishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State
responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the
Member States by a third-country national are to be interpreted as
meaning that, where the legislation of the requesting Member State Operative part of the order
provides for suspensive effect of an appeal, the period for implementa-
tion of the transfer begins to run, not as from the time of the provi-
1. The appeal is dismissed.
sional judicial decision suspending the implementation of the transfer
procedure, but only as from the time of the judicial decision which
rules on the merits of the procedure and which is no longer such as to 2. Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 shall pay the costs.
prevent its implementation.

(1) OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


(1) OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.