References to the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association States: 2016
Updated 31 January 2022
© Crown copyright 2022
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/references-to-the-court-of-justice-of-the-european-union/references-to-the-court-of-justice-of-the-european-free-trade-association-states-2016
Table of cases
| Case and subject | Parties | Legislation | Pre-hearing |
|---|---|---|---|
| A request for an advisory opinion of the EFTA Court from Norway under Article 34 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement concerning the interpretation of certain specific provisions set out in Directive 2008/95/EC to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union |
Norwegian Board of Appeal for Industrial Property Rights | Directive 2008/95/EC Article 34 of the Surveillance and Court Agreement |
Comments by 6 May 2016 Deadline for UK to lodge observations expires on 15 June 2016 |
Case: E-05/16
Questions referred for an advisory opinion
-
May trademark registration of copyright works, for which the protection period has expired, under certain circumstances, conflict with the prohibition in Article 3(1)(f) of the Trade Marks Directive on registering trademarks that are contrary to ‘public policy or … accepted principles of morality’?
-
If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, will it have an impact on the assessment that the copyright work is well-known and of great cultural value?
-
If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, may factors or criteria other than those mentioned in question 2 have a bearing on the assessment, and, if so, which ones?
-
Is Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 2008/95/EC applicable to two-dimensional representations of sculptures?
-
Is Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2008/95/EC applicable as legal authority for refusing trademarks that are two or three-dimensional representations of the shape or appearance of the goods?
-
If question 5 is answered in the affirmative, is Article 3(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 2008/95/EC to be understood to mean that the national registration authority, in assessing trademarks that consist of two or three-dimensional representations of the shape or appearance of the goods, must apply the assessment criterion of whether the design in question departs significantly from the norm or customs of the business sector, or may the grounds for refusal be that such a mark is descriptive of the shape or appearance of the goods?