Opinion of Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered on 9 October 1990

1 Original language: Italian.

2 First Council Directive of 21 December 1988 (89/104/EEC) to approximate the laws of lhe Member Sutes relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1).

3 As a research note prepared in the Court shows, in the Benelux countries and the Federal Republic of Germany at least, the use of the symbol (R) could serve to prevent a trade mark being used generically.

4 It should be noted that the discriminatory nature of a rule precludes the application of the criteria for justification aid down in the judgment in Cassis de Dijon (see, for example, the judgment in Case 59/082 Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wiruchaft[1983] ECR 1217).

5 In that regard, Article 30 has been held to be applicable, for example, to national measures applicable without distinction requiring, for imported products, that labelling be changed to adopt a particular description (Judgment in Case 27/80 Fietjie [1980] ECR 3839), or that specific hallmarks be used (judgment in Case 220/81 Robertson [1982] ECR 2349), or that packaging be changed to make it comply with the special prescribed form of packaging (judgment in Case 261/81 Rau [1982] ECR 3961), or that the type of bottle in which a wine was traditionally marketed in the State of origin be changed in order to comply with the national provisions of the importing Sute, which reserve that type of bottle (Bocksbeutel) solely for wine produced in a specific region (judgment in Case 16/83 Prantl [1984] ECR 1229).

6 Judgment in Case 178/84 Commiision v Germany [1987] ECR 1227, paragraph 32.