Notice

References to the Court of Justice of the European Union: 2014

Updated 31 January 2022

1. Table of cases

Case and subject	Parties	Legislation	Pre-hearing
C-603/14 P An appeal against the judgment in case T-515/12 on the grounds of a distortion of the facts and the incorrect application of community law	OHIM v El Corte Ingles	Article 8(1)(b) and article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009	Comments by 15 April 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 11 May 2015
C-598/14 P An appeal to the Court of Justice against the judgment of the General Court in case T-453/11.	Szajner v OHIM	Article 65(2) of the Trademark Regulation Article 8(4) of that regulation read in conjunction with Article L 711-4 of the French Intellectual Property Code	Comments by 8 April 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 4 May 2015
C-597/14 P An appeal to the Court of Justice regarding the Judgment in case T-543/12 on the grounds of incorrect assessment, interpretation and application of the Community Trade Mark Regulation.	OHIM v Grau Ferrer	Article 76(2) of the CTR and the third paragraph of Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/ 95 Article 15(1), second paragraph, point (a) of the CTR	Comments by 1 April 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 27 April 2015
C-577/14 P An appeal to the Court of Justice against the Judgment in case. T-51/12 on the grounds of an infringement of the Community Trade Mark.	OHIM v Brandconcern	Article 50 (1) (a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/ 2009	Comments by 01 April 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 27 April 2015
C-572/14 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns a reference from the Austrian Court in relation the placing on the market of recording material for the first time in Austria. The issue is whether the Austrian Courts have the international jurisdiction to decide the Applicant’s claim. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	AUSTRO MECHANA	Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC)No 44/2001	Comments by 9 February 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 07 April 2015
C-548/14 P An appeal to the Court of Justice regarding points 25 to 33 and 68 to 83 in the Judgment in case T-490/12	Arnoldo Mondadori Editore Spa v OHIM	Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (‘CTMR’) Article 8(5) CTMR	Comments by 18 March 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 13 April 2015
C-537/14 P An appeal against the General Court’s judgment in case T-341/13 on the grounds of a failure to apply case law in the analysis of the marks in issue and wrongly concluding that the marks are dissimilar.	Debonair Trading International v OHIM	Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation	Comments by 29 April 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 25 May 2015
C-513/14P An appeal to the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court in case T-686/13	Unibail v OHIM	Article 75 of Regulation 207/2009 on the Community trade mark Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation	Comments by 13 May 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 08 June 2015
C-512/14P An appeal to the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court in case T-686/13	Unibail v OHIM	Article 75 of Regulation 207/2009 on the Community trade mark Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation	Comments by 13 May 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 08 June 2015
C-500/14 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case concerning a wheeltrim manufacturer producing wheeltrims which bear the unauthorised trademark of various motor companies. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Ford Motor Company	Article 14 of Directive 98/71 and Article 110 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 Regulation No 207/2009 and Directive (EC) 89/104EC	Comments by 9 January 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 05 March 2015
C-490/14 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns a copyright dispute relating to map data owned by the State of Bavaria and allegedly exploited by a company which produces maps and guides for cyclists, inline skaters and mountain bikers. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Verlag Esterbauer	Article 1(2) of Directive 96/9/EC	Comments by 23 December 2014 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ observations 19 February 2015
C-484/14 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns the liability of copyright infringement where the infringement may have been committed by a third party accessing the defendants unprotected wireless network. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	McFadden	Article 12(1) and (3), Article 14(1)(b), Article 15(1) and Article 2(b) of Directive 2000/31/EC	Comments by 19 December 2014 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ observations 16 February 2015
C-471/14 A request for a preliminary ruling concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Seattle Genetics	Article 13(1) of Regulation 469/2009	Comments by 1 December 2014 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 27 January 2015
C-470/14 A reference from the Spanish Court concerning its domestic scheme for the payment of fair compensation for private copying. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	EGEDA and Others	Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC	Comments by 1 December 2014 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 27 January 2015
C-400/14 P (Trade marks) An appeal to the Court of Justice against the judgment of the General Court in case T-372/11 on the grounds that the General Court’s interpretation of “distribution service” in the preliminary assessment of similarity of service was incorrect.	BASIC AG LEBENSMITTELHANDEL v OHIM		Comments by 15 December 2014 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 12 January 2015
C-374/14P (Trade marks) An appeal to the Court of Justice against the judgment of the General Court in case T-95/13, a case where the appellant requests that the judgment be set aside, and the related decision be annulled, or alternatively that the case referred back to the General Court.	Walcher Messtechnik GMBH v OHIM	Article 7(1)(c) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation 207/2009	Comments by 17 October 2014 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 17 November 2014
C-343/14P (Trade marks) An appeal to the CJ against the judgment of the GC in case T-160/12 concerning the word mark ‘MARINE BLEU’ for goods in Classes 18, 24 and 25.	Adler Modemarkte AG v OHIM	Article 8(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (40/94) Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1)	Comments by 17 October 2014 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 17 November 2014
C-325/14 A request for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the Information Society Directive 2001/29/EC as regards “direct injection” Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	SBS Belgium	Article 3 of the Information Society Directive 2001/29/EC regarding direct injection	Comments by 4 September 2014 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 21 October 2014
E-16/14 A question of the validity of a supplementary patent protection certificate (SPC) Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Pharmaq SA v Intervet International	Article 2 of the SPC Regualtion	Comments by 4 September 2014 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 13 October 2014
C-270/14P (Trade marks) An appeal against the judgment in case T-356/12 regarding the likelihood of confusion with the word SÔ :UNIC as the opposition has 24 previously registered national or Community marks, all containing the word element ‘so… ?’	Debonair Trading Internacional Lda v OHIM	Article 8(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009Article 8(1)(b) CTMR	Comments by 22 September 2014 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 20 October 2014
C-249/14P (Trade marks) An appeal to the Court of Justice against the judgment of the General Court in case T-602/11 based on 3 points related to the genuine likelihood of confusion between the marks in question.	Pera-Grave-Sociedade Agricola, Unipessoal LDA v OHIM	Article 8(1)(b) of the Community Trademark Regulation 207/2009	Comments by 27 October 2014 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 24 November 2014
C-224/14P An appeal against the case T-226/12 on the grounds the General Court misinterpreted the requirements for proof of genuine use if the opposition mark	Lidl Stiftung & Co, KG v OHIM	Article 42 (2) and (3) CTMR and Rule 22 (3) and (4) of CTMIR in conjunction with Article 15 (1) CTMR	Comments by 8 September 2014 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 6 October 2014
C-215/14 A request for a preliminary ruling. The case concerns circumstances in which a trader may secure a perpetual monopoly in the shape of a product by registering it as a trade mark. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Société des Produits Nestlé S.A.	Article 3(3) of Directive 2008/95/EC Article 3(1)(e) of Directive 2008/95/EC	Comments by 17 June 2014 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 13 Aug 2014
C-147/14 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case that concerns an infringement of the community trade mark ‘EL Baina’ and the ability to differentiate between the meanings of the labels in dispute. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Loutfi Management Propriété Intellectuelle	Article 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark	Comments by 28 May 2014 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 24 July 2014
C-125/14 (Trade marks) This is a request for a preliminary ruling from the Hungarian Fovárosi Törvényszék concerning a disputed trade mark. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Iron & Smith	Article 4(3) of Directive 2008/95/EC to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (‘the Directive’)	Comments by 30 April 2014 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 2 July 2014
C-41/14 This is a request for a preliminary ruling from the French Cour de Cassation concerning the payment of the resale right royalty on the artists resale rights. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Christie’s France SNC v Syndicat National des Antiquaires	Article 1(4) of Directive 2001/84/EC on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art	Comments by 12 March 2014 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 6 May 2014
C-35/14 P (Trade marks) An appeal against the judgement in case T-245/12 on the grounds that the appellant was denied due legal process and the General Court erred in assuming that the contested mark is a ‘colour mark per se’	Enercon GMBH	Article 7(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community Trade Mark.	Comments by Noon 22 April 2014 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 17 May 2014
C-31/14 P (Trade marks) An appeal against the judgement in case T-536/10 concerning pharmaceutical product.	OHIM v Kessel Marketing	Article 43(1) of the Regulation on the Community Trade Mark in conjunction with Article 2(2) of the Regulation implementing the Regulation on the Community trade mark	Comments by Noon 22 April 2014 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 17 May 2014
C-30/14 This is a request for a preliminary ruling from the Netherlands Court concerning the utilisation by a company of information derived from their customer’s website onto their own website. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Ryanair Ltd v PR Aviation BV	Articles 6(1) and 8 in conjunction with Article 15 of the Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases	Comments by 24 March Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 1 May 2014
C-20/14 (Trade Marks) This is a request for a preliminary ruling from the German Patents Court specifically concerning the likelihood of the public’s confusion in relation to the grant of a trade mark partly consisting of individual letters. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	BGW Marketing & Management Service	Article 4(1)(b) of the Trade Mark Directive	Comments by the 13 March 2014 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 30 April 2014

1.1 Case: C-572/14

AUSTRO MECHANA

Does a claim for payment of ‘fair compensation’ under Article 5(2)(b) 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 which, in accordance with Austrian law, is directed against undertakings that are first to place recording material on the domestic market on a commercial basis and for consideration constitute a claim arising from ‘tort, delict or quasi-delict’ within the meaning of 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?

1.2 Case: C-500/14

Ford Motor Company

(a) Is it compatible with [EU] law to interpret Article 14 of Directive 98/71 and Article 110 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 as conferring on producers of replacement parts and accessories the right to use trademarks registered by third parties in order to allow the end purchaser to restore the original appearance of a complex product and, therefore, also when the proprietor of the trade mark applies the distinctive sign in question to a replacement part or accessory intended to be mounted on the complex product in such a way that it is externally visible and thus contributes to the external appearance of the complex product?

(b) Is the repair clause set out in Article 14 of Directive 98/71 and Article 110 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 to be interpreted as constituting a subjective right for third-party producers of replacement parts and accessories and, if so, does that subjective right include the right for such third parties to use the trade mark registered by another party in respect of replacement parts and accessories, by way of derogation from the rules laid down in Regulation No 207/2009 and Directive (EC) 89/104 and, therefore, when the proprietor of the trade mark also applies the distinctive sign in question to a replacement part or accessory intended to be mounted on the complex product in such a way that it is externally visible and thus contributes to the external appearance of the complex product?

1.3 Case: C-490/14

Verlag Esterbauer

In relation to the question of whether a collection of independent materials exists within the meaning of Art. 1(2) of Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases because the materials can be separated from one another without the value of their informative content being affected, is every conceivable informative value decisive, or only the value which is to be determined on the basis of the purpose of the collection and having regard to the resulting typical conduct of users?

1.4 Case: C-484/14

McFadden

1. Is the first half-sentence of Article 12(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), in conjunction with Article 2(a) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), in conjunction with Article 1 point 2 of Directive 98/34/EC as amended by Directive 98/48/EC, to be interpreted as meaning that ‘normally provided for remuneration’ means that the national court must establish whether a. the person specifically concerned, who claims the status of service provider, normally provides this specific service for remuneration, or b. there are on the market any providers at all who provide this service or similar services for remuneration, or c. the majority of these or similar services are provided for remuneration?

2. Is the first half-sentence of Article 12(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) to be interpreted as meaning that ‘provision of access to a communication network’ means that the only criterion for provision in conformity with the Directive is that access to a communication network (for example, the internet) should be successfully provided?

3. Is the first half-sentence of Article 12(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), in conjunction with Article 2(b) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), to be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of ‘provision’ within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), the mere fact that the information society service is made available, that is to say, in this particular instance, that an open Wireless Local Area Network is put in place, is sufficient, or must the service be ‘actively promoted’, for example?

4. Is the first half-sentence of Article 12(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) to be interpreted as meaning that ‘not liable for the information transmitted’ precludes as a matter of principle, or in any event in relation to a first established copyright infringement, any claims for injunctive relief, damages or payment of the costs of the warning notice and court proceedings which the person affected by a copyright infringement pursues against the access provider?

5. Is the first half-sentence of Article 12(1) in conjunction with Article 12(3) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States must not to allow the national court, in substantive proceedings against the access provider, to make an order requiring the access provider to refrain in future from enabling third parties to make a particular copyright-protected work available for electronic retrieval from online exchange platforms via a specific internet connection?

6. Is the first half-sentence of Article 12(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, the provision contained in Article 14(1)(b) of Directive 2000/31/EC is to be applied mutatis mutandis to a claim for a prohibitory injunction?

7. Is the first half-sentence of Article 12(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) in conjunction with Article 2(b) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) to be interpreted as meaning that the requirements applicable to a service provider are confined to the condition that a service provider is any natural or legal person providing an information society service?

8. If Question 7 is answered in the negative, what additional requirements must be imposed on a service provider for the purposes of interpreting Article 2(b) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’)?

9. (a) Is the first half-sentence of Article 12(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’), taking into account the existing protection of intellectual property as a fundamental right forming part of the right to property (Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) and the provisions of the following directives on the protection of intellectual property, in particular copyright:

– 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;

– Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, and taking into account the freedom of information and the fundamental right under EU law of the freedom to conduct a business (Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union), to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a decision of the national court, in substantive proceedings, whereby the access provider is ordered, with costs, to refrain in future from enabling third parties to make a particular copyright-protected work or parts thereof available for electronic retrieval from online exchange platforms via a specific internet connection and it is left to the access provider to determine what specific measures he will take in order to comply with that order?

(b) Does this also apply where the access provider is in fact able to comply with the prohibition imposed by the court only by terminating or password-protecting the internet connection or examining all communications passing through it in order to ascertain whether the particular copyright-protected work is unlawfully transmitted again, and this fact is apparent from the outset rather than coming to light only in the course of enforcement or penalty proceedings?

1.5 C-471/14

Seattle Genetics

Refers the following question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling:

1. Is the date for the first authorisation to place the product on the market, pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation 469/2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products determined according to Community law, or does that provision refer to the date on which the authorisation takes effect in the law of the Member State in question?

2. If the Court determines that the answer is that the date is determined by Community law, is this the date of authorisation or the date of notification?

1.6 C-470/14

EGEDA E.A.

Refers the following question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling:

1. Is a scheme for fair compensation for private copying compatible with Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC where the scheme, taking as a basis an estimate of the harm actually caused, is financed from state resources, and the cost of compensation is therefore not borne by the users of those private copies?

2. If yes, is the scheme compatible with that provision where the total amount allocated via state resources to fair compensation for private copying has to be set within budgetary limits established for each financial year?

1.7 C-325/14

SBS Belgium

Refers the following question to the Court of Justice of the European Union:

1. Does a broadcasting organisation which transmits its programmes exclusively via the technique of direct injection […] make a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 2001/29/EC … on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society?

1.8 E-16/14

Pharmaq S.A. v Intervet International

Refers to following questions to the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association States:

1. Has a product been placed on the market as a medicinal product in the EEA before it has been granted marketing authorisation in accordance with the procedure for administrative authorisation laid down in Directive 81/851/EEC or Directive 2001/82/EEC when delivery of the product has taken place in accordance with the relevant domestic legislation?
2. If the answer to this question is yes, then is such a product outside the scope of the SPC Regulation, and is an SPC granted on the basis of that product invalid?
3. Should a marketing authorisation granted for a veterinary medicinal product pursuant to Article 26(3) of Directive 2001/82 be deemed to constitute an administrative authorisation pursuant to Directive 81/851 or Directive 2001/82 within the meaning of Article 2?
4. (a) Do special approval exemptions pursuant to Section 3-6 or 3-7 of the Norwegian Medicines Regulations of 1999 (FOR-199-12-22-1559) or Section 2-6 or 2-7 of the Norwegian Medicines Regulations of 2009 (FOR-2009-12-18-1839) constitute valid authorisation to place the product on the market as a medicinal product within the meaning of Article 3(b)?(b) Do special approval exemptions pursuant to Section 3-6 or 3-7 of the Norwegian Medicines Regulations of 1999 (FOR-199-12-22-1559) or Section 2-6 or 2-7 of the Norwegian Medicines Regulations of 2009 (FOR-2009-12-18-1839) constitute a first authorisation to place the product on the market as a medicinal product in Norway within the meaning of Article 3(d)?
5. When the medicinal product is a virus vaccine, can the scope of protection under the SPC cover not only the specific strain of the virus that is included in the medicinal product and covered by the basic patent, but also other strains of the virus that are covered by the basic patent?In answering this question, is it of significance whether(a) such other strains have an equivalent therapeutic effect to the virus strain included in the medicinal product or whether the therapeutic effect is not immediately equivalent?(b) a medicinal product based on such other strain will have to be the subject of a separate marketing authorisation with requirements for documentation of safety and effect?
6. If an SPC has been granted with a product definition that is not strictly limited to the specific strain of the virus authorised to be placed on the market as a medicinal product,(a) will such an SPC be valid, or a(b) will the SPC be valid; such, however, that the scope of protection pursuant to Article 4 does not extend beyond the specific virus strain authorised to be placed on the market as a medicinal product?

1.9 C-215/14

Société des Produits Nestlé S.A.

Refers the following question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling:

1. In order to establish that a trade mark has acquired distinctive character following the use that had been made of it within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Directive 200S/951EC, is it sufficient for the applicant for registration to prove that at the relevant date a significant proportion of the relevant class of persons recognise the mark and associate it with the applicant’s goods in the sense that, if they were to consider who marketed goods bearing that mark, they would identify the applicant; or must the applicant prove that a significant proportion of the relevant class of persons rely upon the mark (as opposed to any other trademarks which may also be present) as indicating the origin of the goods?
2. Where a shape consists of three essential features, one of which results from the nature of the goods themselves and two of which are necessary to obtain a technical result, is registration of that shape as a trade mark precluded by Article 3(1)(e)(i) and/or (ii) of Directive 200S/951EC?
3. Should Article 3(1)(e)(ii) of Directive 200S/95IEC be interpreted as precluding registration of shapes which are necessary to obtain a technical result with regard to the manner in which the goods are manufactured as opposed to the manner in which the goods function?

1.10 C-147/14

Loutfi Management Propriété Intellectuelle

Refers the following question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling:

In view of, inter alia, Articles 21 and 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must Article 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark be interpreted as meaning that, in the assessment of the likelihood of confusion between a Community trade mark in which an Arabic word is dominant and a sign in which a different, but visually similar, Arabic word is dominant, the difference in pronunciation and meaning between those words may, or even must, be examined and taken into account by the competent courts of the Member States, even though Arabic is not an official language of the European Union or of the Member States?

1.11 C-125/14

Iron & Smith

Four questions have been raised to the ECJ;

1. Is it sufficient, for the purposes of proving that a Community trade mark has a reputation within the meaning of Article 4(3) of the Directive for that mark to have a reputation in one Member State, including where the national trade mark application which has been opposed on the basis of such a reputation has been lodged in a country other than that Member State?
2. May the principles laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the genuine use of a Community trade mark be applied in the context of the territorial criteria used when examining the reputation of such a mark?
3. If the proprietor of an earlier Community trade mark has proved that that mark has a reputation in countries other than the Member State in which the national trade mark application has been lodged - which cover a substantial part of the territory of the European Union – may he also be required, notwithstanding that fact, to adduce conclusive proof in relation to that Member State?
4. If the answer to the previous question is no, bearing in mind the specific features of the internal market, may a mark used intensively in a substantial part of the European Union be unknown to the relevant national consumer and therefore the other condition for the ground precluding registration in accordance with Article 4(3) of the Directive not be met, since there is no likelihood of detriment to, or unfair advantage being taken of, a mark’s repute or distinctive character? If so, what facts must the Community trade mark proprietor prove in order for that second condition to be met?

1.12 C-41/14

Christie’s France SNC v Syndicat National des Antiquaires

Question referred for a preliminary ruling

Must the rule laid down by Article 1(4) of Directive 2001/84/EC on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art, which makes the seller responsible for payment of the royalty, be interpreted as meaning that the seller is required definitively to bear the cost thereof without any derogation by agreement’s being possible?

1.13 C-30/14

Ryanair Ltd v PR Aviaton BV

Does the Database Directive extend to online databases which are not protected by copyright on the basis of Chapter II of the Directive, and also not by a sui generis right on the basis of Chapter III, in the sense that the freedom to use such databases through the application of Articles 6(1) and 8 in conjunction with Article 15 of the Directive cannot be limited contractually?

1.14 C-20/14

BGW Marketing & Management Service

Question referred for a preliminary ruling

1. Concerning the interpretation of Article 4(1) (b) of the Trade Mark Directive. The Court asks whether, in the case of identical and similar goods and services, there may be taken to be a likelihood of confusion if a distinctive sequence of letters which dominates an earlier word/figurative trade mark in such a way that the sequence of letters is supplemented by a descriptive combination of words relating to its which explains the sequence of letters as an abbreviation of the descriptive words?