References to the Court of Justice of the European Union: 2013

Question 1

1.1 C-661/13

Accepted Answer

Astellas Pharma

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

Is Article 10(6) of Directive 2001/83/EC to be interpreted as meaning that the exclusion from patent protection also applies to acts of provision by which a third party for purely commercial reasons offers or supplies to a manufacturer of generic medicinal products a patent-protected active substance which that generic pharmaceutical undertaking has planned to use for conducting studies or trials for a marketing authorisation under medicinal product law as provided for in Article 10(6)?
If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative:

(a) Does the third party’s enjoyment of the exemption depend on the manufacturer of generic medicinal products who is supplied by him actually using the provided active substance for exempted studies or trials under Article 10(6) of Directive 2001/83/EC? Does the exclusion from patent protection apply in such a case even where the third party has no knowledge of the intentions of his customer to use the active substance for purposes covered by the exemption and has also not satisfied himself in this regard?

Or, in order for the third party to enjoy the exemption, does it matter only that at the time of his act of provision he can legitimately assume on the basis of all the circumstances (for example, the focus of the undertaking supplied, the small quantity of the active substance provided, the imminent expiry of the patent protection for the active substance in question, experiences as to the customer’s reliability) that the generic pharmaceutical undertaking supplied will use the active substance provided exclusively for exempted trials or studies in the context of a marketing authorisation?

(b) Must the third party, in connection with performance of his act of provision, take measures of his own to ensure that the active substance is actually used by his customer only for exempted trials or studies and do the measures to be taken by him differ according to whether.

Question 2

1.2 C-631/13

Accepted Answer

Forsgren

The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union under Article 267 TFEU:

Under Article 1(b) and Article 3(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal product, provided that the other conditions are met, may a protection certificate be granted for an active ingredient protected by a basic patent (in this case, Protein D) where that active ingredient is contained in the medicinal product (in this case, Synflorix) as part of a covalent (molecular) bond with other active ingredients but none the less retains its own effect?
If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

- Under Article 3(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009, may a protection certificate be granted for the substance protected by the basic patent (in this case, Protein D) where that substance has a therapeutic effect of its own (in this case, as a vaccine against Haemophilus influenzae bacteria) but the authorisation of the medicinal product does not relate to that effect?

- Under Article 3(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009, may a protection certificate be granted for the substance protected by the basic patent (in this case, Protein D) where the authorisation describes that substance as a 'carrier' for the actual active ingredients (in this case, Pneumococcal polysaccharides), the carrier, as an adjuvant, enhances the effect of those substances, but that effect is not expressly mentioned in the authorisation of the medicinal product?

Question 3

1.3 C-577/13

Accepted Answer

Actavis Group et Actavis

Questions referred:

(a) If a patent does not, upon grant, contain a - claim that explicitly identifies two active ingredients in combination, but the patent could be amended so as to include such a claim could this patent, whether or not such an amendment is made, be relied upon as a “basic patent in force” for a product comprising those ingredients in combination pursuant to Article 3(a) of Regulation No 469/2006/EC (“the Regulation”)?

(b) Can a patent that has been amended after the grant of the patent and either (i) before and / or (ii) after grant of the SPC be relied upon as the “basic patent in force” for the purposes of fulfilling the condition set out in Article 3(a) of the Regulation?

(c) Where an applicant applies for an SPC for a product comprised of active ingredients A and B in circumstances where,

i) after the date of application for the SPC but before the grant of the SPC, the basic patent in force, being a European Patent (UK) (the “Patent”) is amended so as to include a claim which explicitly identifies A and B;and

ii) the amendment is deemed, as a matter of national law, always to have had effect from the grant of the Patent; is the applicant for the SPC entitled to rely upon the Patent in its amended form for the purposes of fulfilling the Art 3(a) condition?
For the purposes of determining whether the conditions in Article 3 are made out at the date of the application for an SPC for a product comprised of the combination of active ingredients A and B where (i) the basic patent in force includes a claim to a product comprising the combination of active ingredients A and B and (ii) there is already an SPC for a product comprising active ingredient A (“Product X”) is it necessary to consider whether the combination of active ingredients A and B is a distinct and separate invention from that of A alone?
Where the basic patent in force “protects” pursuant to Article 3(a):

(a) A product comprising active ingredient A (“Product X”); and
(b) A product comprising a combination of active ingredient A and active ingredient B (“Product Y”).

And where:

(c) An authorisation to place Product X on the market as a medicinal product has been granted;
(d) An SPC has been granted in respect of Product X; and
(e) A separate authorisation to place Product Y on the market as a medicinal product has subsequently been granted.

Does the Regulation, in particular Articles 3(c), 3(d) and/or 13(1) of the Regulation preclude the proprietor of the patent being issued with an SPC in respect of Product Y? Alternatively, if an SPC can be granted in respect of Product Y, should its duration be assessed by reference to the grant of the authorisation for Product X or the authorisation for Product Y?
If the answer to question 1(a) is in the negative and the answer to question 1(b)(i) is positive and the answer to question 1(b)(ii) is negative, then in circumstances where:

i) in accordance with Art 7(1) Regulation, an application for an SPC for a product is lodged within six months of the date on which a valid authorisation to place that product on the market as a medicinal product has been granted in accordance with Directive 2001/83/EC or Directive 200l/82/EC;

ii) following the lodging of theappiicatiorrior the SPC, the competent industrial property office raises a potential objection to the grant of the SPC under Article 3(a) of the Regulation;

iii) following and in order to meet the aforesaid potential objection by the competent industrial property office, an application to amend the basic patent in force relied upon by the SPC applicant is made and granted;

iv) upon amendment of the basic patent in force, said amended patent complies with Article 3(a);

Does the SPC Regulation prevent the competent industrial property office from applying national procedural provisions to enable (a) suspension of the application for the SPC in order to allow the SPC applicant to apply to amend the basic patent, and (b) recommencement of said application at a later date once the amendment has been granted, the said date of recommencement being * after six months from the date on which a valid authorisation to place that product on the market as a medicinal product was granted but * within six months of the date on which the application to amend the basic pate.

Question 4

1.4 C-572/13

Accepted Answer

Hewlett-Packard Belgium

The questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling are:

Question 1:

Must the term ‘fair compensation’ contained in Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) be interpreted differently depending on whether the reproduction on paper or a similar medium effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects is carried out by any user or by a natural person for private use and for ends that are neither directly nor indirectly commercial? If the answer is in the affirmative, on what criteria must that difference of interpretation be based?

Question 2:

Must Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 be interpreted as authorising the Member States to fix the fair compensation payable to rightholders in the form of:

a lump-sum remunerative payment made by the manufacturer, importer or intra-Community acquirer of devices enabling protected works to be copied, at the time when such devices are put into circulation on national territory, the amount of which is calculated solely by reference to the speed at which the copier is capable of producing a number of copies per minute, without being otherwise linked to any harm suffered by rightholders; and,
a proportional remunerative payment, determined solely by means of a unit price multiplied by the number of copies produced, which varies depending on whether or not the person liable for payment has cooperated in the collection of that remuneration, which is payable by natural or legal persons making copies of works or, as the case may be, in lieu of those persons, by those who, for consideration or free of charge, make a reproduction device available to others.

If the reply to this question is in the negative, what are the relevant and consistent criteria that the Member States must apply in order to ensure that, in accordance with European Union law, the compensation may be regarded as fair and that a fair balance is maintained between the persons concerned?

Question 3:

Must Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 be interpreted as authorising the Member States to allocate half of the fair compensation due to rightholders to the publishers of works created by authors, the publishers being under no obligation whatsoever to ensure that the authors benefit, even indirectly, from some of the compensation of which they have been deprived?

Question 4:

Must Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 be interpreted as authorising the Member States to introduce an undifferentiated system for recovering the fair compensation due to rightholders in the form of a lump-sum and an amount for each copy made, which, implicitly but indisputably, covers in part the copying of sheet music and counterfeit reproductions?

Question 5

1.5 C-539/13

Accepted Answer

Merck Canada et Merck Sharp and Dohme

These questions relate to the Specific Mechanism in Chapter 2 of Annex IV to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of (inter alia) the Republic of Poland.

Conditions for reliance upon the Specific Mechanism

May the holder, or his beneficiary, of a patent or supplementary protection certificate rely upon his rights under the first paragraph of the Specific Mechanism only if he has first demonstrated his intention to do so?
If the answer to Question 1 is yes:

(a) How must that intention be demonstrated?

(b) Is the holder, or his beneficiary, precluded from relying upon his rights with respect to any import or marketing of the pharmaceutical product in a Member State that occurred prior to the demonstration of his intention to rely upon those rights?

The notifier

Who must give the prior notification to the holder or beneficiary of a patent or supplementary protection certificate under the second paragraph of the Specific Mechanism? In particular:

(a) Must the prior notification be given by the person intending to import or market the pharmaceutical product?

or

(b) Where, as permitted by the national regulatory system, an application for regulatory approval is made by someone other than the intended importer, can prior notification given by the applicant for regulatory approval be effective if that person does not itself intend to import or market the pharmaceutical product but where the intended importation and marketing will be carried out under the applicant's regulatory approval?; and

(i) Does it make any difference if the prior notification identifies the person that will import or market the pharmaceutical product?

(ii) Does it make any difference if the prior notification is given and the application for regulatory approval is made by one legal person within a group of companies which form a single economic unit, and the acts of importation and marketing are to be carried out by another legal person within that group under licence from the first legal person, but where the prior notification does not identify the legal person that will import or market the pharmaceutical product?

Who should be notified?

To whom must prior notification be given under the second paragraph of the Specific Mechanism? In particular:

(a) Is the beneficiary of a patent or supplementary protection certificate limited to persons who have a legal right under national law to bring proceedings to enforce that patent or supplementary protection certification?

Or

(b) In a case where a group of companies forms a single economic unit comprising a number of legal entities, is it sufficient if the notification is addressed to a legal entity which is the operating subsidiary and marketing authorisation holder in the Member State of importation rather than the entity within the group that has a legal right under national law to bring proceedings to enforce that patent or supplementary protection certificate, on the basis either that such legal entity may be characterised as a beneficiary of the patent or SPC. or that it is to be expected that such notification in the ordinary course of events will to come to the attention of the persons who make decisions on behalf of the patent or SPC holder?

(c) If the answer to Question 4(b) is yes, is a notification which is otherwise compliant rendered non-compliant if it is addressed to the "the Manager, Regulatory Affairs" of a company when that company is not the entity within the group that has a legal right under national law to bring proceedings to enforce that patent or supplementary protection certificate but is the operating subsidiary or marketing authorisation holder in the Member State of importation and when that Regulatory Affairs department in practice regularly receives notifications from parallel importers regarding the Specific Mechanism and other matters?

Question 6

1.6 C-535/13

Accepted Answer

Honda Giken Kogyo

Question referred:

What is the scope of the provisions of Article 7 of Directive 89/104/?EC (now Article 7 of Directive 2008/95/?C) and of Article 13 of Regulation (?C) 40/94/?C (now Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) in relation to the right of a trade mark proprietor to prohibit parallel imports into the EU and the EEA of its products which were first supplied or put on the market in a country outside the EU and the EEA, especially in the case of products with a large profit margin and price squeezing, as evidenced by large fluctuations in pricing policy, and/or where parallel imports may result in considerable reductions in prices to end consumers, for their benefit and the benefit of the competition, as in the case of all types of spare parts for motor vehicles, in light of the effect, in isolation or combination, of:

(a) The provisions of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU; (b) the provisions of Articles I, XI.1, ???.4 and XX(d) and GATT 1994 law in general; and (c) Articles I and [?]XIV G??? 1994, especially as they [extend] the scope of the provisions of Article 7(1) of Directive 2008/95/?C and of Article 13(1) of Regulation (?C) No 207/2009 …to products put on the market in contracting parties of G??? 1994 [and] reciprocity issues arise between them?

Question 7

1.7 C-516/13

Accepted Answer

Dimensione Direct Sales et Labianca

The following questions on the interpretation of Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling:

Does the distribution right under Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC include the right to offer the original or copies of the work to the public for sale?

If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative:

Does the right to offer the original or copies of the work to the public for sale include not only contractual offers, but also advertising measures?
Is the distribution right infringed even if no purchase of the original or copies of the work takes place on the basis of the offer?

Question 8

1.8 C-458/13

Accepted Answer

Grund E.A

The question referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling is:

Does Article 12(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspect of copyright and related rights in the information society (the Directive), preclude the application of a domestic provision which transposes Article 6(2) of the Directive into national law if the technological measure in question protects not only works or other subject matter, but also computer programs?

Question 9

1.9 C-441/13

Accepted Answer

Pez Hejduk

The following question is referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 267 TFEU:

Is Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that, in a dispute concerning an infringement of rights related to copyright which is alleged to have been committed in that a photograph was kept accessible on a website, the website being operated under the top-level domain of a Member State other than that in which the proprietor of the right is domiciled [Or. 2], there is jurisdiction only

in the Member State in which the alleged infringer is established; and
in the Member State(s) to which the website, according to its content, is directed?

Question 10

1.10 C-421/13

Accepted Answer

Apple

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling;

The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks:

Is article 2 of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the possibility of protection for the ‘packaging of goods’ also extends to the layout in which a service is incorporated?
Are Articles 2 and 3(1) of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that a sign representing the layout in which the service is incorporated is capable of being registered as a trade mark?
Is Article 2 of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of graphic representability is satisfied by a drawn representation alone or with such additions as a description of the layout or indications of absolute dimensions in metres or of relative dimensions with indications as to proportions?
Is Article 2 of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the scale of the protection afforded by a trade mark for retail services also extends to the goods produced by the retailer itself?

Question 11

1.11 C-420/13

Accepted Answer

Netto Marken Discount

The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 2 of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks:

Is Article 2 of the directive to be interpreted as meaning that a service within the meaning of this provision also encompasses retail trading in services?
If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

Is Article 2 of the directive to be interpreted as meaning that the content of the services offered by the retailer must be specified in exactly the same way as the goods that a retailer markets?

(a) Does it suffice for the purposes of specification of the services if

  (aa) just the field of services in general or general indications,

  (bb) just the class(es) or

  (cc) each specific individual service is stated?

(b) Do these details then take part in determining the date of filing or is it possible, where general indications or classes are stated, to make substitutions or additions?
If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

Is Article 2 of the directive to be interpreted as meaning that the scope of trade mark protection afforded to retail services extends even to services rendered by the retailer himself?

Question 12

1.12 C-419/13

Accepted Answer

Art & AllPosters International

The following question is referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a Preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 4 of Dirctive 2001/29/EC:

Does Article 4 of Directive 2001/29/EC (the Copyright Directive) govern the answer to the question, whether the distribution right of a copyright-protected work which has been sold and delivered within the EEA with the consent of the rightholder where the reproduction has been subsequently altered in respect of its form and is again brought into circulation?

Question 13

1.13 C-364/13

Accepted Answer

International Stem Cell Corporation

Are unfertilised human ova whose division and further development have been stimulated by parthenogenesis, and which, in contrast to fertilised ova, contain only pluripotent cells and are incapable of developing into human beings included in the term “human embryos” in Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 98/44IEC on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions?

Question 14

1.14 C-360/13

Accepted Answer

Public Relations Consultants Association Limited (Appellant) v The Newspaper Licensing Agency Limited and others (Respondents)

In circumstances where:

(i) an end - user views a web - page without downloading, printing or otherwise setting out to make a copy of it;

(ii) copies of that web - page are automatically made on screen and in the internet “cache” on the end-user’s hard disk;

(iii) the creation of those copies is indispensable to the technical processes involved in correct and efficient internet browsing;

(iv) the screen copy remains on screen until the end - user moves away from the relevant web - page, when it is automatically deleted by the normal operation of the computer;

(v) the cached copy remains in the cache until it is overwritten by other material as the end - user views further web - pages, when it is automatically deleted by the normal operation of the computer; and

(vi) the copies are retained for no longer than the ordinary processes associated with internet use referred to at (iv) and (v) above continue;

Are such copies (i) temporary, (ii) transient or incidental and (iii) an integral and essential part of the technological process within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC?

Question 15

1.15 C-348/13

Accepted Answer

Bestwater International

The First Civil Chamber of the Bundesgerichtshof has decided to refer to the Court of Justice of the European Union, for a preliminary ruling, the following question relating to the interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society:

Does the embedding, within one’s own website, of another person’s work made available to the public on a third-party website, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, constitute communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC, even where that other person’s work is not thereby communicated to a new public and the communication of the work does not use a specific technical means which differs from that of the original communication?

Question 16

1.16 C-345/13

Accepted Answer

Karen Millen Fashions

The Court has referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union the following questions:

In consideration of the individual character of a design which is claimed to be entitled to be protected as an unregistered Community design for the purposes of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12th December, 2001 on Community designs, is the overall impression it produces on the informed user, within the meaning of Article 6 of that Regulation, to be considered by reference to whether it differs from the overall impression produced on such a user by

(a) any individual design which has previously been made available to the public, or

(b) any combination of known design features from more than one such earlier design?
Is a Community design court obliged to treat an unregistered Community design as valid for the purposes of Article 85(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12th December, 2001 on Community designs where the right holder merely indicates what constitutes the individual character of the design or is the right holder obliged to prove that the design has individual character in accordance with Article 6 of that Regulation?

Question 17

1.17 C-291/13

Accepted Answer

Papasavvas E.A.

Bearing in mind that the laws of the Member States on defamation affect the capacity to provide information services by electronic means both at national level and within the European Union, might those laws be regarded as restrictions on the provision of information services for the purposes of applying Directive 2000/31/EC?2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, do the provisions of Articles 12, 13 and 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC, on the question of liability, apply to private civil matters, such as civil liability for defamation, or are they limited to civil liability in matters concerning business to consumer transactions?3. Bearing in mind the purpose of Articles 12, 13 and 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC relating to the liability of information society service providers and the fact that, in many Member States, an action must exist in order for a prohibitory injunction to be granted which will remain in force pending full completion of the proceedings, do those articles create individual rights which may be pleaded as defences in law in a civil action for defamation, or must they operate as an obstacle in law to the bringing of such actions?4. Do the definitions of 'information society service' and 'service provider' in Article 2 of Directive 2000/31/EC and Article 1(2) of Directive 98/34/EC, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC, cover online information services the remuneration for which is provided not directly by the recipient, but indirectly by means of commercial advertisements posted on the website?5. Bearing in mind the definition of ‘information service provider', laid down in Article 2 of Directive 2000/31/EC and Article 1(2) of Directive 98/34/EC, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC, could the following, or any of them, be regarded as a 'mere conduit' or 'caching' or 'hosting' for the purposes of Articles 12, 13 and 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC:

[Or. 5]

(a) a newspaper that operates a free website on which the online version of the printed newspaper, with all its articles and advertisements, is posted in pdf format or another similar electronic format;

(b) an online newspaper which is freely accessible but the provider obtains money from commercial advertisements posted on the website, where the information contained in the online newspaper comes from the newspaper’s staff and/or freelance journalists; (c) a website which provides (a) or (b) above for a subscription?

Question 18

1.18 C-279/13

Accepted Answer

C More Entertainment

Does the expression communication to the public, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Information Society Directive, include measures to make available on a website open to the public a clickable link to a work which is broadcast by the holder of the copyright in that work?
Is the manner in which the linking is done relevant to the answer to question 1?
Is it relevant if the access to the work to which the linking is done is in any way restricted?
May the Member States give wider protection to the exclusive right of rightholders by enabling ‘communication to the public’ to cover a greater range of acts than provided for in Article 3(1) of the Information Society Directive?
May the Member States give wider protection to the exclusive right of authors by enabling ‘communication to the public’ to cover a greater range of acts than provided for in Article 3(1) of the Information Society Directive?

Question 19

1.19 C-217/13 and C-218/13

Accepted Answer

Oberbank and others

The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 3(1) and (3) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25):

1.Does Article 3(1) and (3) of the directive preclude an interpretation of national law according to which, for an abstract colour mark (in this case: red HKS 13) which is claimed for services in the financial affairs sector, a consumer survey must indicate an adjusted degree of association of at least 70% in order to form a basis for the assumption that the trade mark has acquired a distinctive character following the use which has been made of it?

2.Is the first sentence of Article 3(3) of the directive to be interpreted to the effect that the time at which the application for the trade mark was filed - and not the time at which it was registered - is also relevant in the case where the trade mark proprietor claims, in his defence against an application for a declaration invalidating the trade mark, that the trade mark acquired a distinctive character, following the use made of it, in any event more than three years after the application, but prior to registration?

3.In the event that, under the abovementioned conditions, the time at which the application was filed is also relevant:

Is the trade mark to be declared invalid if it is not clarified, and can no longer be clarified, whether it had acquired a distinctive character, following the use made of it, at the time when the application was filed? Or does the declaration of invalidity require the applicant seeking that declaration to prove that the trade mark had not acquired a distinctive character, following the use made of it, at the time when the application was filed?

Question 20

1.20 C-210/13

Accepted Answer

GlaxoSmithKline v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

This judgment is from High Court case GlaxoSmithKline v Comptroller General of Patents [2013] EWHC 619 (Pat) which refers the following questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Is an adjuvant which has no therapeutic effect on its own, but which enhances the therapeutic effect of an antigen when combined with that antigen in a vaccine, an ‘active ingredient’ within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Regulation 469/2009/EC?
If the answer to question 1 is no, can the combination of such an adjuvant with an antigen nevertheless be regarded as a ‘combination of active ingredients’ within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Regulation 469/2009/EC?

Question 21

1.21 C-205/13

Accepted Answer

Hauck

Questions referred for a preliminary hearing;

(a) Does the ground for refusal or invalidity in Article 3(1)(e)(i) of Directive 89/104/EEC, as codified in Directive 2008/95/EC, namely that shape trade marks may not consist exclusively of a shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves, refer to a shape which is indispensable to the function of the goods, or can it also refer to the presence of one or more substantial functional characteristics of goods which consumers may possibly look for in the goods of competitors?

(a) Does the ground for refusal or invalidity in Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 89/104/EEC, as codified in Directive 2008/95/EC, namely, that (shape) trade marks may not consist exclusively of a shape which gives substantial value to the goods, refer to the motive (or motives) underlying the relevant public’s decision to purchase?

(b) Does a 'shape which gives substantial value to the goods' within the meaning of the aforementioned provision exist only if that shape must be considered to constitute the main or predominant value in comparison with other values (such as, in the case of high chairs for children, safety, comfort and reliability) or can it also exist if, in addition to that value, other values of the goods exist which are also to be considered substantial?

(c) For the purpose of answering Questions 2(a) and 2(b), is the opinion of the majority of the relevant public decisive, or may the court rule that the opinion of a portion of the public is sufficient in order to take the view that the value concerned is 'substantial' within the meaning of the aforementioned provision?

(d) If the latter option provides the answer to Question 2(c), what requirement should be imposed as to the size of the relevant portion of the public?
Should Article 3(1) of Directive 89/104/EEC, as codified in Directive 2008/95/EC, be interpreted as meaning that the ground for exclusion referred to in subparagraph (e) of that article also exists if the shape trade mark consists of a sign to which the content of sub-subparagraph (i) of subparagraph (e) applies, and which, for the rest, satisfies the contents of sub-subparagraph (iii) of subparagraph (e)?

Question 22

1.22 C-201/13

Accepted Answer

Deckmyn et Vrijheidsfonds

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

Is the concept of ‘parody’ an independent concept in European Union law?
If so, must a parody satisfy the following conditions or conform to the following characteristics:

- the display of an original character of its own (originality)

- and such that the parody cannot reasonably be ascribed to the author of the original work

- be designed to provoke humour or to mock, regardless of whether any criticism thereby expressed applies to the original work or to something or someone else;– mention the source of the parodied work?
Must a work satisfy any other conditions or conform to other characteristics in order to be capable of being labelled as a parody?

Question 23

1.23 C-170/13

Accepted Answer

Huawei Technologies

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

Does the proprietor of a standard-essential patent who informs a standardisation body that he is willing to grant any third party a licence on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms abuse his dominant market position if he brings an action for an injunction against a patent infringer although the infringer has declared that he is willing to negotiate concerning such a licence?

Or

Is an abuse of the dominant market position to be presumed only where the infringer has submitted to the proprietor of a standard-essential patent an acceptable, unconditional offer to conclude a licensing agreement which the patentee cannot refuse without unfairly impeding the infringer or breaching the prohibition of discrimination, and the infringer fulfils his contractual obligations for acts of use already performed in anticipation of the licence to be granted?
If abuse of a dominant market position is already to be presumed as a consequence of the infringer's willingness to negotiate:

Does Article 102 TFEU lay down particular qualitative and/or time requirements in relation to the willingness to negotiate? In particular, can willingness to negotiate be presumed where the patent infringer has merely stated (orally) in a general way that that he is prepared to enter into negotiations, or must the infringer already have entered into negotiations by, for example, submitting specific conditions upon which he is prepared to conclude a licensing agreement?
If the submission of an acceptable, unconditional offer to conclude a licensing agreement is a prerequisite for abuse of a dominant market position:

Does Article 102 TFEU lay down particular qualitative and/or time requirements in relation to that offer? Must the offer contain all the provisions which are normally included in licensing agreements in the field of technology in question? In particular, may the offer be made subject to the condition that the standard-essential patent is actually used and/or is shown to be valid?
If the fulfilment of the infringer's obligations arising from the licence that is to be granted is a prerequisite for the abuse of a dominant market position:

Does Article 102 TFEU lay down particular requirements with regard to those acts of fulfilment? Is the infringer particularly required to render an account for past acts of use and/or to pay royalties? May an obligation to pay royalties be discharged, if necessary, by depositing a security?
Do the conditions under which the abuse of a dominant position by the proprietor of a standard-essential patent is to be presumed apply also to an action on the ground of other claims (for rendering of accounts, recall of products, damages) arising from a patent infringement?

Question 24

1.24 C-117/13

Accepted Answer

Technische Universitat Darmstadt

The following questions are referred to the European Court of Justice

Is use subject to purchase or licensing terms within the meaning of Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29/EC where the rightholder offers to conclude with the establishments referred to therein licensing agreements for the use of works on appropriate terms?
Does Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29/EC entitle the Member States to confer on the establishments the right to digitise the works contained in their collections, if that is necessary in order to make those works available on terminals?
May the rights which the Member States lay down pursuant to Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29/EC go so far as to enable users of the terminals to print out on paper or store on a USB stick the works made available there?

Question 25

1.25 C-98/13

Accepted Answer

Blomqvist

The following questions have been referred to the European Court of Justice:

Question 1

Is Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society to be interpreted in such a way that it must be viewed as constituting ‘distribution to the public’ in a Member State of copyright-protected goods if an undertaking enters into an agreement via a website in a third country for the sale and dispatch of the goods to a private purchaser with an address known to the vendor in the Member State where the goods are protected by copyright, receives payment for the goods and effects dispatch to the purchaser at the agreed address, _or _is it also a condition in that situation that the goods must have been the subject, prior to the sale, of an offer for sale or an advertisement targeted at, or shown on a website intended for, consumers in the Member State where the goods are delivered?

Question 2

Is Article 5(1) and (3) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks to be interpreted in such a way that it must be viewed as constituting ‘[use] in the course of trade’ of a trade mark in a Member State if an undertaking enters into an agreement via a website in a third country for the sale and dispatch of goods bearing the trade mark to a private purchaser with an address known to the vendor in the Member State where the trade mark is registered, receives payment for the goods and effects dispatch to the purchaser at the agreed address, _or _is it also a condition in that situation that the goods must have been the subject, prior to the sale, of an offer for sale or an advertisement targeted at, or shown on a website intended for, consumers in the State in question?

Question 3

Is Article 9(1) and (2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark to be interpreted in such a way that it must be viewed as constituting ‘[use] in the course of trade’ of a trade mark in a Member State if an undertaking enters into an agreement via a website in a third country for the sale and dispatch of goods bearing the Community trade mark to a private purchaser with an address known to the vendor in a Member State, receives payment for the goods and effects dispatch to the purchaser at the agreed address, _or _is it also a condition in that situation that the goods must have been the subject, prior to the sale, of an offer for sale or an advertisement targeted at, or shown on a website intended for, consumers in the State in question?

Question 4

Is Article 2(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights to be interpreted in such a way that it is a condition for the application in a Member State of the provisions on the prevention of release for free circulation and the destruction of ‘pirated goods’ that ‘distribution to the public’ must have occurred in the Member State under the same criteria as indicated in the answer to question 1?

Question 5

Is Article 2(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights to be interpreted in such a way that it is a condition for the application in a Member State of the provisions on the prevention of release for free circulation and the destruction of ‘counterfeit goods’ that ‘[use] in the course of trade’ must have occurred in the Member State under the same criteria as indicated in the answers to questions 2 and 3?

Question 26

1.26 C-49/13

Accepted Answer

MF7

The referring court asks the following questions:

Is Article 3(2)(d) of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that, for the assessment of whether a trade mark applicant acted in good faith, only circumstances apparent before the date or on the date of the submission of the trade mark application are relevant, or can circumstances which occurred after the application was submitted also be used as supporting evidence of the fact that the applicant acted in good faith ?
Is it necessary to apply the judgment in Joined Cases C-414/99 to C-416/99 generally to all cases where it is being assessed whether a trade mark proprietor agreed to conduct which may result in weakening or limitation of his exclusive rights ?
Is it possible to infer good faith on the part of an applicant for a later trade mark from the situation in which the proprietor of an earlier trade mark concluded agreements with it, on the basis of which that proprietor consented to the publication of periodical printed material whose designation was similar to mark applied for by the later trade mark applicant, agreed with the registration of that printed material by the applicant for a later trade mark and offered that applicant support in its publication, but the agreements concerned nevertheless did not expressly regulate the issue of the intellectual property right?
In so far as circumstances occurring after a trade mark application was submitted may also be relevant for the purposes of the assessment of whether the trade mark applicant acted in good faith, is it possible, in the alternative, to infer the fact that the applicant acted in good faith from the situation in which the proprietor of the earlier trade mark knowingly tolerated the existence of the contested trade mark for a period of at least ten years?

Case and subject	Parties	Legislation	Pre-hearing
C-670/13 P (Trade marks) An appeal to the Court of Justice against the judgment of the General Court in case T-285/12	The Cartoon Network, Inc. v OHIM	Articles 36 and 53 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EUArticle 8(1) (b) and Article 75 of the Community Trade Mark	Comments by 7 March 2014 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 1 April 2014
C-669/13 P (Trade marks) An appeal against the judgment in case T-328/12 on the grounds of a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.	Mundipharma GMBH v OHIM	Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009	Comments by 3 April 2014 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 2 May 2014
C-661/13 (Patents) A request for a preliminary ruling in a case concerning the circumstances in which relevant exemptions in respect of experimental use of patented products may extend to the supplier of those products to a third party. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Astellas Pharma Inc	Article 10(6) of Directive 2001/83	Comments by 11 February 2014 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 8 April 2014
C-631/13 A request for a preliminary ruling concerning an application for a patent protection certificate with respect to a substance (Protein D) which is present in an authorised medicinal product. Protein D is covalently bound to some pneumococcal polysaccharides in medicinal product Synflorix, which is authorized as a pneumococcal vaccine. Protein D is acting as a carrier in Synflorix but is an active ingredient in vaccines against Haemophilus influenza bacteria. The question arises whether an SPC for protein D may be granted based on the authorisation for Synflorix which does not specify the therapeutic effect of protein D but refers to it as a carrier protein. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Forsgren	Article 1(b) and Article 3 (a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal product	Comments by 24 January 2014 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 24 March 2014
C-622/13 P (Trade Marks) An appeal against the judgment in case T-320/10 in which the Appellant claimed that the application should have been dismissed as inadmissible because of the ‘abus de droit’ committed by the other party. In addition the General Court violated Article 7 (1) (c) CTMR in that it applied erroneous legal criteria in determining that the Appellant’s mark was improperly registered.	Castel Fréres SAS v OHIM	Article 7 (1) (c) CTMR	Comments by 7 February 2014 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ7 March 2014
C-582/13 P (Trade marks) An appeal against the judgment in case T-437/11 on the grounds of the General Courts infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation.	Intra-Presse v OHIM	Article 8(1)(b) CTMRArticle 8(5) CTMR	Comments by 7 February 2014 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 7 March 2014
C-581/13 P (Trade marks) An appeal against the judgment in case T-448/11 on the grounds of the General Courts infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation.	Intra-Presse v OHIM	Article 8(1)(b) CTMRArticle 8(5) CTMR	Comments by 7 February 2014 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 7 March 2014
C-577/13 (Patents) A request for a preliminary ruling in a case where the referring UK High Court asks a series of multi-part questions concerning the application of Regulation 469/2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Actavis Group et Actavis	Article 3(a) of the Regulation	Comments by 10 January 2014 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 27 February 2014
C-572/13 (Copyright) A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns a Belgian law by which a levy must be applied against devices sold to the Belgian government for remunerating authors and publishers of works copied. It is argued that the Belgian law is incompatible with EU law as ‘remuneration’ in the Belgian legislation is not consistent with that of ‘fair compensation’. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Hewlett-Packard Belgium	Articles 5(2) (a) and 5(2) (b) of Directive 2001/29/EC	Comments by 24 December 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 20 February 2014
C-539/13 (Patents) A request for a preliminary ruling in a case concerning the importation into the UK from Poland of a drug by the defendant. The claimant states that the importation of the drug in question was an infringement of the Claimant companies’ rights covered by a Supplementary Protection Certificate. The filing date of the application for the Patent was prior to the date when Poland introduced patent protection for pharmaceutical products under its laws, and the application date for the SPC was before the date when SPCs could be applied for under the laws of Poland. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Merck Canada et Merck Sharp and Dohme	Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’)	Comments by 27 November 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 27 January 2014
C-535/13 (Trade marks) A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns the consent of parallel imports of products manufactured in Thailand, which are intended by the applicant to be put on the market in Asia, not in the EEA. It is an order which seeks to prohibit the defendant from importing, holding, advertising, distributing for sale and selling the applicant’s products which were first put into circulation outside the EEA. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Honda Giken Kogyo	Article 7 of Directive 2008/95 and Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009	Comments by 6 December 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 3 February 2014
C-521/13 P (Trade marks) An appeal against the judgment in case T-208/12The grounds of the appeal are; 1. Infringement of the right to be heard. 2. Failure to have regard to the failure to state reasons. 3. Failure to have regard to the significance of the principle of ex proprio motu investigation. 4. Incorrect interpretation and application of Article 7(1) (b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (CTMR)	Think Schuhwerk GmbH v OHIM	Article 7(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation	Comments by6 December 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 2 January 2014
C-516/13 (Copyright) A request for a preliminary ruling in a case concerning the distribution rights under Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC including the right to offer the original or copies of the work to the public for sale Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Dimensione Direct Sales et Labianca	Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC	Comments by 11 November 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 8 January 2014
C-509/13 P (Trade Marks) An appeal against the judgment in case T-197/12 on the grounds that the Court misinterpreted the services covered by the mark in question, and failed to assess the marks as a whole. The Court also delivered conflicting judgments in cases involving the same parties and where similar marks were at issue.	Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL v OHIM	Article 8(1) (b) of Regulation 20/2009	Comments by 02 December 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 27 December 2013
C-495/13 P (Trade marks) An appeal against the judgment in case T-206/12 which concerns the registration of the figurative mark in colour, including the word elements ‘LIBERTE American blend’ against a blue background, for goods in Class 34	GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v OHIM	Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009	Comments by 22 November 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 19 December 2013
C-494/13 P (Trade marks) An appeal against the judgment in case T-205/12 which concerns the registration of the figurative mark in colour, including the word elements ‘LIBERTE American blend’ against a blue background, for goods in Class 34	GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH v OHIM	Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009	Comments by 22 November 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 19 December 2013
C-490/13 P (Trade marks) An appeal to the Court of Justice against the judgment of the General Court in case T-106/12. The grounds for appeal are: (a) The General Court infringed Article 65(6) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) and Article 1 (d) (1) of Regulation 216/96 (2) regarding the measures taken by OHIM to comply with the judgment of the General Court (b) The General Court infringed the principle of legal certainty, as well as Article 17 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights	Cytochroma Development Inc v OHIM	Article 65(6) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) and Article 1 (d) (1) of Regulation 216/96 (2) Article 17 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights	Comments by 16 December 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 9 January 2014
C-468/13 P (Trade Marks) An appeal to the Court of Justice against the judgment of the General Court in case T-367/12. The grounds of the appeal include infringement of Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure and Article 21 of the Statute, infringement of the Community Trade Mark Regulation and settled case law, and a failure to make a clear and separate assessment of the aspects of visual, aural and conceptual similarity.	Mol Magyar Olaj-es v OHIM	Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure and Article 21 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. Article 65(2) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation Article 135 (4) of the Rules of Procedure	Comments by 5 December 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 2 January 2014
C-466/13 P (Trade marks) An appeal to the Court of Justice against the judgment of the General Court in case T-89/12	Repsol SA, v OHIM		Comments by 7 November 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 6 December 2013
C-458/13 (Copyright) A request for a preliminary ruling in a case concerning an adaptor designed to circumvent copyright protection on a handheld video game console. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Grund E.A.	Article 12(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC	Comments by 18 October 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 5 December 2013
C-448/13 P (Trade marks) An appeal to the Court of Justice against the judgment of the General Court in case T-515/11 regarding the rejection of the CTM application ‘INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD’	Delphi Technologies, Inc. v OHIM	Article 7(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation	Comments by 7 November 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 6 December 2013
C-445/13 P (Trade Marks) An appeal against the judgment in case T-178/11 regarding a request for a declaration of invalidity lodged in respect to the Community trade mark (‘CTM shape mark’), registered by Voss	Voss of Norway ASA v OHIM	Article 7 (b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation	Comments by 5 December 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 2 January 2014
C-441/13A request for a preliminary ruling regarding a claim by a photographer based in Vienna for infringement of copyright in photographs by a company based in Dusseldorf. The applicant believes that the Vienna courts have jurisdiction as the website on which the photographs were published by the Defendant is accessible in Vienna. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Pez Hejduk	Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001	Comments by 26 September 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 26 November 2013
C-421/13(Trade marks) A request for a preliminary ruling in a case concerning an application for the domestic extension of protection for a 3D trade mark which was registered internationally for services in Class 35 (retail store services), described as ‘distinctive design and layout of a retail store’ The application was refused on the grounds that it was devoid of distinctive character Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Apple	Article 2 of Directive 2008/95/EC	Comments by 16 September 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 12 November 2013
C-420/13 (Trade marks) A request for a preliminary ruling in a case concerning the registration of a word/figurative sign as a trade mark The application was refused on the basis that the services were not clearly and precisely distinguishable from other services in substance or scope Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Netto Marken Discount	Article 2 of Directive 2008/95/EC	Comments by 16 September 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 12 November 2013
C-419/13 (Copyright) A request for a preliminary ruling regarding a claim by Art & Allposters International. Allposters used the works of those within pictoright by altering and reproducing them on canvas. Allposters argues that the work has been significantly altered and has been disseminated to the public in a different form; therefore Allposters does not infringe the copyright of the rightholders. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Art & AllPosters International	Article 4 of Directive 2001/29/EC (the Copyright Directive)	Comments by the 30 September 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 26 Nov 2013
C-415/13 P (Trade marks) An appeal against the judgment in case T-19/12. The grounds of the appeal relate to a mistaken finding by the General Court that the Appellant’s trade mark was similar to the trade mark of the intervener and that consequently there was a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.	Fabryka Lozysk Toczynch-Krasnik SA v OHIM	Article 8(1) (b) of Regulation No 207/2009	Comments by 4 October 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 31 October 2013
C-414/13 P (Trade marks) An appeal against the judgment in case T-530/10 on the grounds that the General Court incompletely assessed the factual basis in this case.	Reber Holding GmbH & CO KG v OHIM	Community trade mark Regulation 40/94	Comments by 25 October 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 22 November 2013
C-412/13 P (Trade marks) An appeal against the judgment in case T-378/11 concerning a claim for seniority of earlier marks in the context of an application for registration of a figurative sign as a Community trade mark	Franz Wilheim Langguth Erben KG v OHIM	Article 34 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009Article 77 of Regulation No 207/2009	Comments by 25 October 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 22 November 2013
C-411/13 P (Trade marks) OHIM seeks that the contested judgment of the General Court in case T-249/11 be set aside, and substituted by a fresh judgment due to an infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.	OHIM v Sanco	Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 207/2009	Comments by 20 September 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 17 October 2013
C-374/13 P (Trade Marks) An appeal against the decision in case T-284/11. The grounds of the appeal are that the Court erred in assessing the comparison of the signs, did not take into account applicable case law, lacked coherence with other office resolutions, and did not deal with pacific coexistence between other trade marks	METROPOLIS INMOBILIARIAS Y RESTAURACIONES, SL v OHIM	Article 8.1 (b) of Regulation 207/2009 on the Community Trade Mark	Comments by 16 September 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 10 October 2013
C-364/13 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case concerning two patents relating to human stem cells. The patent applications were refused on the grounds that the inventions disclosed in the patent applications were excluded from patentability. The case questions what is meant by the term “human embryos” in Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 98/44/EC on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	International Stem Cell Corporation	Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 98/44/EC	Comments by 22 August 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 14 October 2013
C-360/13 (Copyright) A request for a preliminary ruling involving making copies of web pages both on screen and in the internet ‘cache’ on the hard drive of a computer. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd	Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC and Article 2 of that Directive	Comments by 12 August 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 10 October 2013
C-348/13 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which questions the meaning of ‘communication to the public’ in Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Bestwater International	Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC	This case has been stayed pending the judgment in case C-466/12: SVENSSON E.A.
C-345/13 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns a claim by a UK retailer that two women’s garments designed by it but subsequently copied and sold by an Irish retailer were protected as unregistered Community designs Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union.	Karen Millen Fashions	Article 6 and article 85(2) of regulation 6/2002 (The Community Design Regulation)	Comments by 13 August 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 10 October 2013
C-326/13 (Trade marks) An appeal against the judgment in case T-507/11 relating to the word mark ‘Peek & Cloppenburg’ for goods in Class 25 and services in Class 35. The grounds of the appeal are an alleged misinterpretation of the criterion ‘confers… the right to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark’ and the concept ‘of more than mere local significance’	Peek and Cloppenburg v OHIM	Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 Articles 110 and 111 of Regulation No 207/2009, and Article 4(4) (b) of Directive 2008/95/EC	Comments by 5 September 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 4 October 2013
C-325/13 P (Trade marks) An appeal against the judgment in case T-506/11 relating to the word mark ‘Peek & Cloppenburg’ for goods in Class 25 and services in Class 35. The grounds of the appeal are an alleged misinterpretation of the criterion ‘confers … the right to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark’ and the concept ‘of more than mere local significance’.	Peek and Cloppenburg v OHIM	Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 Articles 110 and 111 of Regulation No 207/2009, and Article 4(4) (b) of Directive 2008/95/EC	Comments by 5 September 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 4 October 2013
C-324/13 P (Trade marks) An appeal against the judgment in case T-360/11 and an appeal lodged outside of the period required	Fercal - Consultadoria e Servicos v OHIM	Article 60 of Regulation 207/2009	Comments by 19 September 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 17 October 2013
C-308/13 P & C-309/13 P (Trade marks) An appeal against the judgments in cases T-336/11 & T-337/11 regarding the registration of the mark VICINI on the grounds of a lack of novelty and the possibility of confusion	Societa Italiana Calzature SpA v OHIM	Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 207/2009 of the Community Trade Mark	Comments by 22 August 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 20 September 2013
C-301/13 P (Trade Marks) An appeal against the judgment in case T-571/11. The grounds of the appeal are breach of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, manifest error of assessment, and likelihood of confusion.	El Corte Ingles S.A. v OHIM	Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 207/2009 of the Community Trade Mark	Comments by 2 August 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 30 August 2013
C-292/13 P (Trade marks) An appeal against the judgment in case T-571/10 regarding an incorrect assumption that the Appellant’s mark is similar to an older Community figurative mark and that there is a likelihood of public confusion	Fabryka Lozysk Tocznych-Krasnik S.A v OHIM	Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009	Comments by 8 August 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 6 September 2013
C-291/13 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case that concerns whether domestic legislation is consistent with Directive 2000/31/EC on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (the Directive) Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union.	Papasavvas E.A	Directive 2000/31/EC	Comments by 25 July 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 14 September 2013
C-285/13 P (Trade marks) An appeal against the judgment in case T-277/12 on the grounds of the likelihood of confusion with an existing mark which was not taken into account as a trade mark with reputation but as a well- known trade mark	BIMBO SA, v OHIM	Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 207/2009 of the Community Trade Mark	Comments by 13 September 013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ10 October 2013
C-279/13 (Copyright) A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns an appeal against prosecution in Sweden where it was alleged that the Defendant had breached the rights of C More Entertainment to broadcast a webcast of two ice hockey matches and made them available to the public. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union.	C More Entertainment	Articles 3(1) and (2), 5(1) and 6 of Directive 2001/29/EC	Comments by 8 July 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 5 September 2013
C-217/13 & C-218/13 (Trade marks) Request for a preliminary ruling in joined cases concerning the interpretation of Directive 2008/95/EC on the approximation of laws regarding the registration of a contourless colour mark (red) as a collective mark for a number of goods and services in the banking/credit industries Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union.	Oberbank and others	Article 3(1) and (3) of Directive 2008/95/EC	Comments by 24 June 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ15 August 2013
C-210/13 The appellant applied for an SPC relating to the product ‘an oil in water emulsion comprising squalene, DL-a-tocopherol and polysorbate 80’, an adjuvant known as AS03. An additional SPC application was filed for a pandemic influenza vaccine containing the adjuvant AS03. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union.	Glaxosmithkline Biologicals SA v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks	Article 1(b) of Regulation 469/2009	Comments by 14 June 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 9 August 2013
C-205/13 A referral from Hoge Raad der Nederlanden - Netherlands concerning shape trade marks and copyright in a high chair for children Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Hauck	Article 3(1) (e) of Directive 89/104/EEC relating to trade marks (“the Directive”)	Comments by 14 June 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 9 August 2013
C-201/13 The meaning of the concept of ‘parody’ in Directive 2001/29/EC. This arises from a challenge by the Applicants against the Defendant, alleging that a drawing fronting a calendar and a political journal and its communication by way of distribution by a Belgian political party, constituted an infringement of their copyright as owners of the exploitation rights of a former Belgian cartoonist and his comic-strip album Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Deckmyn et Vrijheidfonds	Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (‘the Directive’)	Comments by 12 June 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 8 August 2013
C-193/13 (Trade marks) An appeal against the judgment in case T-283/11 due to a failure to take into account sufficiently the limited distinctiveness of the element ‘fon’	Nfon Wreless Ltd V OHIM	Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 207/2009 CTM	Comments by 18 July 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 8 August 2013
C-177/13 P (Trade marks) An appeal against the judgment in case T-159/11 on the grounds of a similarity between trade marks and the possibility that consumers might be misled.	Marek Marszalkowski v OHIM	Article 8(1) (b) of Regulation No 207/2009	Comments by 06 August 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 30 August 2013
C-170/13 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case concerning the abuse of dominant market position in the field of mobile communications technology Questions refered to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Huawei Technologies	Article 102 TFEU	Comments by 31 May 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 20 July 2013
C-159/13 P (Trade marks) An appeal against the judgment in case T-479/09.The applicant asks that the judgment be set aside, and seeks a declaration that the applicant’s mark remains valid and in force	Fercal v OHIM	Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 89/104/EECArticles 8(4) and 53(1) (c) of Regulation 207/2009 on the Community Trade Mark	Comments by 1 July 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 25 July 2013
C-141/13 P (Trade marks) This case concerns an appeal against the judgment in case T-355/09 on the grounds of the General Court’s interpretation of ‘genuine use’	Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG v OHIM	Article 42(2) in conjunction with Article 42(3) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation	Comments by 31 May 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 28 July 2013
C-126/13 P (Trade marks) An appeal against the judgment in case T-625/01 in its decision to partially reject the registration of the mark ‘ecoDoor’ on the grounds of it being descriptive of the goods	BSH Bosch and Seimens Hausgerate GmbV v OHIM	Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009	Comments by 26 June 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 18 July 2013
2013 EWHC 807 (Ch) The case concerns an appeal in the UK High Court concerning two patent applications in the name of ISCC both relating to human stem cells. The patent applications were refused by the Intellectual Property Office on the grounds that the inventions disclosed in the patent applications were excluded from patentability under paragraph 3(d) of Schedule A2 to the Patents Act 1977. The case questions what is meant by the term ‘human embryos’ in Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 98/44/EC on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions. In particular, what was meant by the ECJ in Case 34/10 _Oliver Brüstle v Greenpeace eV _[2012] 1 CMLR 41 by the expression ‘capable of commencing the process of development of a human being’? Please note that this reference has not been received from the ECJ, but is expected in the near future.	International Stem Cell Corporation ‘ISCC’ and Comptroller General Of Patents	Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 98/44/EC on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions	Deadline for UK to lodge observations to be confirmed pending receipt of case details from the ECJ
C-117/13 (Copyright) A request for a preliminary ruling in a case concerning the use of digitalised books which have been made available at electronic reading points in a library. The Applicant seeks to prohibit the Defendant communicating to the public digitised copies of its works without a licensing agreement for digital use and prohibit the Defendant from enabling users to print out and/or reproduce on USB sticks of its work Questions refered to the Court of Justice of the European Union.	Technische Universitat Darmstadt	Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29	Comments by 30 April 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 28 June 2013
C-98/13 (Enforcement) A request for a preliminary ruling in a case concerning the purchase in Denmark of a counterfeit wrist watch from a Chinese online store. The case concerns whether the Chinese online store has infringed copyright and trade mark in Denmark Questions refered to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Blomqvist	Article 4 of Directive 2001/29/ECArticle 9 of Regulation 207/2009Article 2(1)(a) and 2(1)(b) of Regulation 1383/2003	Comments by 24 April 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 20 June 2013
C-70/13 P An appeal against the judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2012 in Case T-338/11, rejecting the appellants’ attempt to protect PHOTOS.COM on grounds that the words are devoid of distinctive character, that the public interest is not jeopardised by confusion, and that the principle of equal treatment is not infringed	Getty Images (US), Inc. v OHIM	Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, and infringement of the principle of equal treatment.	Comments by 19 April 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 16 May 2013
C-49/13 (Trade marks) A request for a preliminary ruling in a case concerning the interpretation of laws for the combined trade marks ‘Mladá fronta DNES’ and ‘MLADÁ FRONTA DNES’ Questions refered to the Court of Justice of the European Union	MF7	Article 3(2)(d) of Directive 2008/98/EC	Comments by 18 March 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 15 May 2013
C-11/13 (Patents) The appellant is seeking a supplementary protection certificate for ‘Isoxadifen and the salts and esters thereof’. Isoxadifen is a ‘safener’, that is, a substance added to a product to prevent the harmful action of an herbicide in plants. The referring Court asks whether such a safener falls within the meaning of the terms ‘product’ in Article 3(1) and Article 1(8), and ‘active substance’ in Article 1(3) of the Regulation	Bayer Cropscience	Regulation 1610/96.Article 3(1) and Article 1(8), and ‘active substance’ in Article 1(3) of the Regulation	Comments by 25 February 2013 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 23 April 2013

Cookies on GOV.UK

1. Table of cases

1.1 C-661/13

Astellas Pharma

1.2 C-631/13

Forsgren

1.3 C-577/13

Actavis Group et Actavis

1.4 C-572/13

Hewlett-Packard Belgium

1.5 C-539/13

Merck Canada et Merck Sharp and Dohme

Conditions for reliance upon the Specific Mechanism

1.6 C-535/13

Honda Giken Kogyo

1.7 C-516/13

Dimensione Direct Sales et Labianca

1.8 C-458/13

Grund E.A

1.9 C-441/13

Pez Hejduk

1.10 C-421/13

Apple

1.11 C-420/13

Netto Marken Discount

1.12 C-419/13

Art & AllPosters International

1.13 C-364/13

International Stem Cell Corporation

1.14 C-360/13

Public Relations Consultants Association Limited (Appellant) v The Newspaper Licensing Agency Limited and others (Respondents)

1.15 C-348/13

Bestwater International

1.16 C-345/13

Karen Millen Fashions

1.17 C-291/13

Papasavvas E.A.

1.18 C-279/13

C More Entertainment

1.19 C-217/13 and C-218/13

Oberbank and others

1.20 C-210/13

GlaxoSmithKline v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

1.21 C-205/13

Hauck

1.22 C-201/13

Deckmyn et Vrijheidsfonds

1.23 C-170/13

Huawei Technologies

1.24 C-117/13

Technische Universitat Darmstadt

1.25 C-98/13

Blomqvist

1.26 C-49/13

MF7

Is this page useful?

Help us improve GOV.UK

Help us improve GOV.UK