References to the Court of Justice of the European Union: 2015

Question 1

Case:C-689/15

Accepted Answer

The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark:

Can the use of an individual mark as a certification mark constitute, in relation to the goods for which it is used, use as a trade mark for the purposes of Articles 9(1) and 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark?
If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: is such a mark to be declared invalid, in accordance with Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, or to be revoked, in accordance with a mutatis mutandis application of Article 73(c) of that regulation, if the proprietor of the mark fails to ensure that expectations in trade relating to the quality associated with the sign are being met by carrying out periodic quality controls at its licensees

Question 2

Case: C-654/15

Accepted Answer

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

The questions concern the interpretation and application of Article 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark where third parties use, without consent, in the course of trade, a sign similar to a Community trade mark. The questions are:

Does it affect the proprietor’s exclusive right that, within a period of five years following registration, he has not made genuine use of the Community trade mark in the European Union for goods or services covered by the registration?
If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, in what circumstances and in what way does that situation affect the exclusive right?

Question 3

Case: C-641/15

Accepted Answer

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

Is the condition of ‘against [payment] of an entrance fee’ laid down in Article 8(3) of Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property satisfied where,

through the TV set made available in each room of a hotel, the hotel operator provides access to the signal for various television and radio channels (‘hotel room TV’), and
for use of the room (including hotel room TV), the hotel operator charges a fee per room per night (room rate) which also includes use of the TV set and the television and radio channels to which access is thereby provided?

Question 4

Case: C-617/15

Accepted Answer

The Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf refers the following question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling:

Under which circumstances is a legally distinct second-tier subsidiary, with its seat in an EU Member State, of an undertaking that itself has no seat in the European Union to be considered as an ‘establishment’ of that undertaking within the meaning of Article 97(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark?

Question 5

Case: C-610/15

Accepted Answer

The following questions have been referred for a preliminary ruling:

Is there a communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive by the operator of a website, if no protected works are available on that website, but a system exist [as described in paragraphs 13 to 30 below] by means of which metadata on protected works which is present on the users’ computers is indexed and categorised for users, so that the users can trace and upload and download the protected works on the basis thereof?
If the answer to Question (1) is negative: Do Article 8(3) of the Copyright Directive and Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive offer any scope for obtaining an injunction against an intermediary as referred to in those provisions, if that intermediary facilitates the infringing acts of third parties in the way referred to in Question 1?

Question 6

Case: C-572/15

Accepted Answer

The following questions have been referred for a preliminary ruling:

Must Article 21(2) of Regulation No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (codified version) be interpreted as shortening the duration of a supplementary protection certificate issued in a Member State which was issued under national law before the accession of the State in question to the European Union and whose duration in relation to an active substance, as stated in the supplementary protection certificate, would be longer than 15 years from the time when the first marketing authorisation in the Union was granted for a medicinal product consisting of the active substance or containing it?
If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is Article 21(2) of Regulation No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (codified version) compatible with European Union law, in particular the general principles of European Union law on the protection of acquired rights, the principle of the prohibition of retroactive effect of law, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

Question 7

Case: C-527/15

Accepted Answer

The Rechtbank (Netherlands) refers the following questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling:

Must Article 3(1) of the Copyright Directive be interpreted as meaning that there is ‘a communication to the public’ within the meaning of that provision, when someone sells a product (mediaplayer) in which he has installed add-ons containing hyperlinks to websites on which copyright protected works, such as films, series and live broadcasts are made directly accessible, without the authorisation of the right holders?
Does it make any difference

whether the copyright-protected works as a whole have not previously been published on the internet or have only been published through subscriptions with the authorisation of the right holder?
whether the add-ons containing hyperlinks to websites on which copyright protected works are made directly accessible without the authorisation of the right holders are freely available and can also be installed in the mediaplayer by the users themselves?
whether the websites and thus the copyright-protected works made accessible thereon — without the authorisation of the right holders - can also be accessed by the public without the mediaplayer?

The Rechtbank also refers the following questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling:

Should Article 5 of the Copyright Directive (Directive 2001/29/EC) be interpreted as meaning that there is no ‘lawful use’ within the meaning of Article 5(1)(b) of that Directive if a temporary reproduction is made by an end user during the streaming of a copyright-protected work from a third party website where that copyright-protected work is offered without the authorisation of the right holder(s)?
If the answer to question 1) is in the negative, is the making of a temporary reproduction by an end user during the streaming of a copyright protected work from a website where that copyright-protected work is offered without the authorisation of the right holder(s) then contrary to the ‘three-step test’ referred to in Article 5(5) of the Copyright Directive (Directive 2001/29/EC)?

Question 8

Case: C-494/15

Accepted Answer

The Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Supreme Court of the Czech Republic), pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, refers the following questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union:

Is a person with a lease of premises in a market, who provides stalls and pitches on which stalls may be placed to individual market-traders for their use, an intermediary whose services are used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right within the meaning of Article 11 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights?

Is it possible to impose on a person with a lease of premises in a market, who provides stalls and pitches on which stalls may be placed to individual markettraders for their use, measures, as provided for in Article 11 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, under the same conditions as those formulated by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 12 July 2011 in Case C-324/09 L’Oréal and Others v eBay and Others with regard to the imposition of measures on the operators of an online marketplace?

Question 9

Case: C-427/15

Accepted Answer

The Nejvyšší soud České republiky, on the basis of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, requests the Court of Justice of the European Union to give a preliminary ruling on the following question:

Must Article 8(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights be interpreted as meaning that it is in the context of proceedings concerning an infringement of an intellectual property right if, after the definitive termination of proceedings in which it was declared that an intellectual property right was infringed, the applicant in separate proceedings seeks information on the origin and distribution networks of the goods or services by which that intellectual property right is infringed (for example, for the purpose of being able to quantify the damage precisely and subsequently seek compensation for it)?

Question 10

Case: C-419/15

Accepted Answer

The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs:

Does the first sentence of Article 33(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs preclude a licensee who has not been entered in the register of Community designs from bringing claims for the infringement of a registered Community design?
In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: may the exclusive licensee of a Community design, with the consent of the right holder, bring an action on its own claiming damages for its own loss under Article 32(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs or can the licensee only intervene in an action brought by the right holder for an infringement of its Community design under Article 32(4) of that regulation?

Question 11

Case: C-367/15

Accepted Answer

Pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Sąd Najwyższy (Polish Supreme Court) refers the following question of law to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

Is Article 13 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45) to be interpreted as meaning that the rightholder whose economic rights of copyright have been infringed may seek redress for the damage which it has incurred on the basis of general principles, or, without having to prove loss and the causal relationship between the event which infringed its rights and the loss, may seek payment of a sum of money corresponding to twice the amount of the appropriate fee, or, in the event of a culpable infringement, three times the amount of the appropriate fee, whereas Article 13 of Directive 2004/48 states that it is a judicial authority which must decide on damages by taking into account the factors listed in Article 13(1)(a), and only as an alternative in certain cases may set the damages as a lump sum, taking into consideration the elements listed in Article 13(1)(b) of that directive? Is the award, made at the request of a party, of damages as a pre-determined lump sum corresponding to twice or three times the amount of the appropriate fee permissible pursuant to Article 13 of the directive, regard being had to the fact that recital 26 of the preamble thereto states.

Question 12

Case: C-301/15

Accepted Answer

The following question has been referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

Do the provisions… of Directive 2001/29/EC of 22 May 2001, preclude legislation… that gives approved collecting societies the right to authorise the reproduction and the representation in digital form of ‘out-of-print books’, while allowing the authors of those books, or their successors in title, to oppose or put an end to that practice, on the conditions that it lays down?

Question 13

Case: C-297/15

Accepted Answer

The Sø- og Handelsretten requests the EU Court of Justice to answer the following questions:

Must Article 7(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 and the related case-law be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark proprietor may lawfully object to the continued marketing of a medicinal product by a parallel importer, where the importer has repackaged the medicinal product in a new, outer packaging and reaffixed the trade mark in a situation where the trade mark proprietor has marketed the medicinal product in the same volume and packet sizes in all EEA countries where the medicinal product is sold?
Will the answer to the first question be different if the trade mark proprietor in both the country of export and the country of import has marketed the medicinal product in two different packet sizes (10-piece packets and 1-piece packets) and the importer has purchased 10-piece packets in the country of export and repackaged them in 1-piece packets, on which the trade mark has been reaffixed before the products are marketed in the country of import?

Question 14

Case: C-280/15

Accepted Answer

The following questions on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling:

Is a Community trade mark court required to issue the order provided for in Article 102(1) if the applicant does not seek such an order in his claims and the parties do not allege that the defendant has infringed or threatened to infringe a Community trade mark after a specific date in the past, or does failure to make an application to that effect and to refer to this fact represent a ‘special reason’ within the meaning of the first sentence of this provision?
Is Article 9(3) to be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a Community trade mark may demand only reasonable compensation from a third party on the basis of the second sentence of Article 9(3) for use of a sign identical with the trade mark in the period from the publication of the application for registration of the trade mark until the publication of the registration of the trade mark, but not compensation for the fair market value of what has been gained as a result of the infringement and for damage, and that there is also no right to reasonable compensation for the period prior to publication of the application for registration of the trade mark?
What type of costs and other forms of compensation are included in reasonable compensation under Article 9(3), second sentence, and can this also encompass in certain circumstances (and if so, in which circumstances) compensation for non-material harm caused to the proprietor of the trade mark?

Question 15

Case: C-275/15

Accepted Answer

The Court of Appeal of England & Wales submits the following Questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

In the interpretation of Article 9 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 (“the Directive”), specifically of the phrase “This Directive shall be without prejudice in particular to… access to cable of broadcasting services”:

Does the quoted phrase permit the continued application of a provision of national law with the scope of ‘cable’ as defined by national law, or is the scope of this part of Article 9 determined by a meaning of ‘cable’ that is defined by EU law?
If ‘cable’ in Article 9 is defined by EU law, what is that meaning? In particular:
(a) Does it have a technologically specific meaning. restricted to traditional cable networks operated by conventional cable service providers? (b) Alternatively, does it have a technologically neutral meaning which includes functionally similar services transmitted via the internet? (c) In either case, does it include transmission of microwave energy between fixed terrestrial points?
Does the quoted phrase apply (1) to provisions which require cable networks to retransmit certain broadcasts or (2) to provisions which permit the retransmission by cable of broadcasts (a) where the retransmissions are simultaneous and limited to areas in which the broadcasts were made for reception and/or (b) where the retransmissions are of broadcasts on channels which are subject to certain public service obligations?”
If the scope of ‘cable’ within Article 9 is defined by national law, is the provision of national law subject to the EU principles of proportionality and fair balance between the rights of copyright owners, cable owners and the public interest?
Is Article 9 limited to the provisions of national law in force at the date on which the Directive was agreed, the date it entered into force or its last date for implementation, or does it also apply to subsequent provisions of national law which concern access to cable of broadcasting services?

Question 16

Case: C-230/15

Accepted Answer

The Rechtbank refers the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union with a request that it deliver a preliminary ruling on the following questions:

I. Must the Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property (BCIP) (whether or not on the grounds set out in paragraphs 28 to 34 of the judgment of the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Regional Court of Appeal, The Hague) of 26 November 2013) be considered to be a subsequent convention, with the result that Article 4.6 of the BCIP cannot be considered to be a special rule for the purposes of Article 71 of Regulation No 44/2001?

If that question is answered in the affirmative:

II. Does it follow from Article 22(4) of Regulation No 44/2001 that the Belgian, Netherlands and Luxembourg courts all have international jurisdiction to take cognisance of the dispute?

III. If not, how should it be determined, in a case such as the present, whether the Belgian, Netherlands or Luxembourg courts have international jurisdiction? Can Article 4.6 of the BCIP (nonetheless) be applied with a view to (further) determining international jurisdiction?

Question 17

Case: C-223/15

Accepted Answer

The Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf refers the following questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling:

In determining the likelihood of confusion of a Community word mark, what is the significance of a situation in which, from the perspective of the average consumer in some Member States, the aural similarity of the Community trade mark with another sign claimed to infringe that trade mark is eliminated by a difference in meaning, whereas from the perspective of the average consumer in other Member States it is not:

(a) In determining the likelihood of confusion is the perspective of some Member States, of the other Member States, or that of a fictive EU average consumer decisive?

(b) If there is a likelihood of confusion only in some Member States, has the Community trade mark been infringed across the European Union, or must the Member States be differentiated individually?

Question 18

Case: C-179/15

Accepted Answer

The following question has been referred for a preliminary ruling:

Must Article 5(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks be interpreted as meaning that the trade mark proprietor is entitled to take action against a third party named in an advertisement on the internet, which features a sign likely to be confused with the trade mark, referring to a service of that third party identical to the goods or services for which the trade mark is registered, in such a way that the public might be given the mistaken impression that there is an official commercial relationship between the undertaking of that third party and the trade mark proprietor, even though the advertisement was not placed on the internet by the person featuring in it or on his behalf, and it is possible to access that advertisement on the internet despite the fact that the person named in it took all reasonable steps to have it removed, but did not succeed in doing so?

Question 19

Case: C-175/15

Accepted Answer

The following questions have been referred for a preliminary ruling:

Must Article 24 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 be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘jurisdiction derived from other provisions of this Regulation’ also covers the situation in which the parties to a contract for the assignment of rights to a trade mark registered in a Member State of the European Union have decided, unequivocally and undisputedly, to confer jurisdiction to settle any dispute regarding fulfilment of contractual obligations to the courts of a State which is not a Member State of the European Union and in which the applicant is domiciled (has its seat), while the applicant has seised a court of a Member State of the European Union in whose territory the defendant is domiciled (has its seat)?

If the answer is in the affirmative:

Must Article 23(5) of that regulation be interpreted as not referring to a clause conferring jurisdiction on a State that is not a Member State of the European Union, so that the court seised pursuant to Article 2 of the regulation will determine jurisdiction according to the rules of private international law in its own national legislation?
Can a dispute relating to the enforcement, through the courts, of the obligation to assign rights to a trade mark registered in a Member State of the European Union, assumed under a contract between the parties to that dispute, be regarded as referring to a right ‘required to be deposited or registered’ within the meaning of Article 22(4) of the regulation, having regard to the fact that, under the law of the State in which the trade mark is registered, the assignment of rights to a trade mark must be entered in the Trade Mark Register and published in the Official Industrial Property Bulletin?
If the answer is in the negative, does Article 24 of the regulation preclude a court seised pursuant to Article 2 of the regulation, in a situation such as that described in the above question, from declaring that it does not have jurisdiction to determine the case, even though the defendant has entered an appearance before that court, including in the final instance, without contesting the jurisdiction?

Question 20

Case: C-174/15

Accepted Answer

The following questions have been referred for a preliminary ruling:

Are Articles 1(1), 2(1)(b) and 6(1) of Directive 2006/115 to be construed as meaning that ‘lending’ as referred to in those provisions also means making copyright-protected novels, collections of short stories, biographies, travelogues, children’s books and youth literature available for use, not for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage, via a publicly accessible establishment:
* by placing a digital copy (reproduction A) on the server of the establishment and enabling a user to reproduce that copy by downloading it on to his/her own computer (reproduction B), – in such a way that the copy made by the user when downloading (reproduction B) is no longer usable after a limited period, and * in such a way that other users cannot download the copy (reproduction A) on to their computers during that period?
If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: does Article 6 of Directive 2006/115 and/or any other provision of EU law preclude Member States from imposing on the application of the restriction on the lending right included in Article 6 of Directive 2006/115 a condition that the copy of the work made available by the establishment (reproduction A) must have been brought into circulation by an initial sale or other transfer of ownership of that copy within the European Union by the rightholder or with his consent within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/29?
If Question 2 is to be answered in the negative: does Article 6 of Directive 2006/115 lay down other requirements for the source of the copy (reproduction A) provided by the establishment, for instance the requirement that the copy was obtained from a lawful source?
If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative: is Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/29 to be construed as meaning that the initial sale or other transfer of ownership of material as referred to in that provision also means making available remotely by downloading, for use for an unlimited period, a digital copy of copyright-protected novels, collections of short stories, biographies, travelogues, children’s books and youth literature?

Question 21

Case: C-169/15

Accepted Answer

The following questions have been referred for a preliminary ruling:

Is the deletion of Article 21(3) (old) BTMW as of 1 December 2003, pursuant to the Protocol of 20 June 2002 amending the BTMW, to be construed – partly in view of the need for interpretation in accordance with the Term of Protection Directive – as meaning that the copyright for a work of applied art, which lapsed before 1 December 2003 on the ground that a maintenance declaration had not been filed in due time, is to be deemed permanently cancelled, or is revived at a certain date?
If the answer to Question 1 is that the copyright is revived at a certain date, from what date is that the case:

(a) the date on which the copyright lapsed in accordance with Article 21(3) (old) BTMW in the absence of a maintenance declaration
(b) the date indicated in Article 10(2), in conjunction with Article 13(1), of the Term of Protection Directive
(c) the date on which Article 21(3) (old) BTMW was deleted, or
(d) some other date?

Question 22

Case: C-166/15

Accepted Answer

The following questions have been referred for a preliminary ruling:

Under Articles 5(1) and 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 of the European Parliament and of the Council, may a person who has acquired a computer program with a ‘used’ licence on a non-original disk, which works and is not used by any other user, rely upon the exhaustion of the right to distribute a copy of that computer program, the first purchaser of which acquired it from the rightholder with the original disk, which however has been damaged, when the first purchaser has erased his copy and no longer uses it?
If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, then, does a person who may rely upon the exhaustion of the right to distribute a copy of the computer program have the right to resell that computer program on a nonoriginal disk to a third person, in accordance with Articles 4(2) and 5(2) of Directive 2009/24?

Question 23

Case: C-163/15

Accepted Answer

The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark.

Does the first sentence of Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark preclude a licensee who is not entered in the Register of Community trade marks from invoking claims for infringement of a Community trade mark?
In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: Does the first sentence of Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark preclude a national legal practice in accordance with which the licensee can enforce the trade mark proprietor’s rights against the infringer by virtue of the power conferred on it for that purpose (Prozessstandschaft)?

Question 24

Case: C-160/15

Accepted Answer

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

The following questions have been referred for a preliminary ruling:

1 (a) If anyone other than the copyright holder refers by means of a hyperlink on a website controlled by him to a website which is managed by a third party and is accessible to the general internet public, on which the work has been made available without the consent of the rightholder, does that constitute a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29?

1 (b) Does it make any difference if the work was also not previously communicated, with the rightholder’s consent, to the public in some other way?

1 (c) Is it important whether the ‘hyperlinker’ is or ought to be aware of the lack of consent by the rightholder for the placement of the work on the third party’s website mentioned in 1(a) above and, as the case may be, of the fact that the work has also not previously been communicated, with the rightholder’s consent, to the public in some other way?

2 (a) If the answer to question 1(a) is in the negative: in that case, is there, or could there be deemed to be, a communication to the public if the website to which the hyperlink refers, and thus the work, is indeed findable for the general internet public, but not easily so, with the result that the publication of the hyperlink greatly facilitates the finding of the work?

2 (b) In answering question 2(a), is it important whether the ‘hyperlinker’ is or ought to be aware of the fact that the website to which the hyperlink refers is not easily findable by the general internet public?

3. Are there other circumstances which should be taken into account when answering the question whether there is deemed to be a communication to the public if, by means of a hyperlink, access is provided to a work which has not previously been communicated to the public with the consent of the rightholder?

Question 25

Case: C-117/15

Accepted Answer

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

Is the question as to whether there is a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 and/or within the meaning of Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115 always to be determined in accordance with the same criteria, namely that

a. a user acts, in full knowledge of the consequences of its action, to provide access to the protected work to third parties which the latter would not have without that user’s intervention,

b. the term ‘public’ refers to an indeterminate number of potential recipients of the service and, in addition, must consist of a fairly large number of persons, in which connection the indeterminate nature is established when ‘persons in general’ — and therefore not persons belonging to a private group — are concerned, and ‘a fairly large number of persons’ means that a certain de minimis threshold must be exceeded and that groups of persons concerned which are too small or insignificant therefore do not satisfy the criterion; in this connection not only is it relevant to know how many persons have access to the same work at the same time but it is also relevant to know how many of them have access to it in succession;

c. the public to which the work is communicated is a new public, that is to say, a public which the author of the work did not contemplate when he authorised its use by communication to the public, unless the subsequent communication uses a specific technical means which differs from that of the original communication; and

d. it is not irrelevant that the act of exploitation in question serves a profit-making purpose and also that the public is receptive to that communication and is not merely ‘reached’ by chance, although this is not an essential condition for the existence of a communication to the public?
In cases such as that in the main proceedings, in which the operator of a rehabilitation centre installs television sets on its premises, to which it transmits a broadcast signal and thus makes it possible for the television programmes to be viewed and heard, is the question whether there is a communication to the public to be assessed according to the concept of ‘communication to the public’ under Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 or under Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115 if the copyright and related rights of a wide range of persons concerned — in particular composers, songwriters and music publishers, but also performing artists, phonogram producers and authors of literary works as well as their publishing houses — are affected by the television programmes which have been made accessible?
In cases such as that in the main proceedings, in which the operator of a rehabilitation centre installs television sets on its premises, to which it transmits a broadcast signal and thus makes television programmes accessible to its patients, is there a ‘communication to the public’ pursuant to Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 or pursuant to Article 8(2) of Directive 2006/115?
If the existence of a communication to the public within this meaning is confirmed for cases such as that in the main proceedings, does the Court of Justice thereby uphold its case-law according to which no communication to the public takes place in the event of the radio broadcasting of protected phonograms to patients in a dental practice (see the judgment of 15 March 2012 in SCF, C-135/10, EU:C:2012:140) or similar establishments?

Question 26

Case: C-110/15

Accepted Answer

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

Does Community law, and in particular recital 31 in the preamble to, and Article 5(2)(b) of, Directive 2001/29/EC, preclude national rules (in particular Article 71 sexies of the Italian Legge sul Diritto d’autore (Law on copyright), in conjunction with Article 4 of the [Decree of] 30 December 2009) that provide that, in the case of media and devices acquired for purposes clearly unrelated to private copying (that is to say, for professional use only), determination of the criteria for ‘ex ante’ exemption from the levy is left to private negotiation, or ‘free bargaining’, with particular regard to the ‘application protocols’ referred to in Article 4 above, failing any general provisions and any guarantee of equal treatment between the SIAE and persons obliged to pay the compensation, or their trade or professional associations?
Does Community law, and in particular recital 31 in the preamble to, and Article 5(2)(b) of, Directive 2001/29/EC, preclude national rules (in particular Article 71 sexies of the Italian Law on copyright, in conjunction with the [Decree of] 30 December 2009, and the instructions on reimbursement given by the SIAE, that provide that, in the case of media and devices acquired for purposes clearly unrelated to private copying (that is to say, for professional use only), reimbursement may be requested only by the final user rather than the producer of the media and devices?

Question 27

Case: C-99/15

Accepted Answer

Question Referred

May Article 13(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights be interpreted as meaning that the party injured by an intellectual property infringement who claims damages for pecuniary loss based on the amount of royalties or fees that would be due if the infringer had requested authorisation to use the intellectual property right in question cannot also claim damages for the moral prejudice suffered?

Question 28

Case: C-57/15

Accepted Answer

The referring court asks:

Do the terms ‘reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses’ in Article 14 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (‘the Enforcement Directive’) preclude the Belgian legislation which offers courts the possibility of taking into account certain well-defined features specific to the case and which provides for a system of varying flat rates in respect of costs for the assistance of a lawyer?
Do the terms ‘reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses’ in Article 14 of the Enforcement Directive preclude the case-law which states that the costs of a technical adviser are recoverable only in the event of fault (contractual or extra-contractual)?

Case and subject	Parties	Legislation	Pre-hearing
C-689/15 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns whether the use of an individual mark as a certification mark can constitute use as a trade mark Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	W.F. Gozze Frottierweberei Et Gozze	Articles 9(1), 15(1), and 73(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(g) of the same Regulation	Comments by 17 February 2016 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 13 April 2016
C-673/15 P, C-674/15 P, C-675/15 P, C-676/15 P An appeal to the Court of Justice against the judgment in cases T-624/13, T-625/13, T-626/13 and T-627/13, the grounds of which relate to the distinctiveness of the mark.	The Tea Board v OHIM	Article 8(1)(b) CTMR (1) and infringement of Article 8(5) CTMR	Comments by 06 April 2016 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 2 May 2016
C-655/15P An appeal against the General Court’s decision in Case T-534/13, in which the UK did not intervene. In that decision, the General Court dismissed the appellant’s claim against OHIM (now EUIPO) for revocation or annulment of decision R623/2011-4.	Panrico v OHIM (now EUIPO)	Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation 40/94 on the Community trade mark	Comments by 20 April 2016 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 16 May 2016
C-654/15 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns the circumstances where third parties use, without consent, in the course of trade, a sign similar to a Community trade mark. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Länsförsäkringar	Article 9(1) (b) of Regulation 207/2009 on the Community trade mark	Comments by 29 January 2016 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 25 March 2016
C-642/15P An appeal to the Court of Justice against the judgment in case T-211/14, the grounds of which relate to the distinctiveness of the mark.	TONI KLEMENT v OHIM	Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation 207/2009	Comments by 9 March 2016 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 1 April 2016
C-641/15 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns a claim by an Austrian collecting society against a hotel chain for remuneration in relation to the broadcast of television content on TVs provided in the chain’s hotel rooms. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	VERWERTUNGSGESELLSCHAFT RUNDFUNK	Article 8(3) of Directive 2006/115/EC	Comments by 28 January 2016 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 22 March 2016
C-617/15 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns an applicant who considers that certain goods being placed on the market infringe its Community trade mark. The first defendant has raised an objection to the action on the ground that the German courts lack international jurisdiction. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	HUMMEL HOLDING	Article 97(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark	Comments by 15 January 2016 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 03 March 2016
C-610/15 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns an action for an injunction to block access by their subscribers to the website The Pirate Bay as media files are shared on a large scale through The Pirate Bay, without the consent of the rightholders. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	STICHTING BREIN	Article 3(1) and Article 8(3) of the Copyright Directive and Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive	Comments by 15 January 2016 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 03 March 2016
C-586/15P An appeal against the judgment of the General Court in case T-483/12.	Lotte Co. LTD v OHIM	Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No. 207/2009 on the Community trade mark	Comments by 8 March 2016 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 25 March 2016
C-575/15P An appeal to the Court of Justice against the General Court’s judgment in case T-584/14, where the General Court dismissed an action against the revocation of a community trade mark.	INDITEX v OHIM	Article 65(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark (“CTMR”) Article 51(1)(a) CTMR	Comments by 17 February 2016 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 11 March 2016
C-572/15 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns a claim for refraining from conduct infringing the exclusive right of the owner of supplementary protection of a medicinal product, or for terminating that conduct, and destroying the infringing medicinal products. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE	Regulation No 469/2009	Comments by 22 December 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 18 January 2016
C-527/15 A request for a preliminary ruling in this case which concerns a media device which makes it possible through online streaming, to play unauthorised programming from the internet on a television, while also containing hyperlinks which link to streaming websites. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	STICHTING BREIN	Directive 2001/29/EC (‘the Copyright Directive’)	Comments by 08 December 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 3 February 2015
C-501/15P An appeal against the judgment of the General Court in case T-24/13 Cactus S.A v OHIM concerning the registration of the figurative sign “Cactus of peace” in Classes 31, 39 and 44 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks. The appellant argues that OHIM erred in its classification of this mark.	OHIM v CACTUS S.A.	Article 15(1)(a) and 28 CTMR, and Rule 2 CTMIR	Comments by 5 January 2016 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 25 January 2016
C-494/15 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns what legal remedies are appropriate against a party who leases premises in a market to other parties who have been found, by a court or administrative body, to infringe or undermine the trademark rights of others Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Tommy Hilfiger Licensing	Article 11 of Directive 2004/48/EC Article 11 of Directive 2004/84/EC	Comments by 09 November 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 04 January 2016
C-482/15P An appeal against the judgment of the General Court in Case T-333/13, which concerned a Community trade mark application where the appellant claims infringement of the principle of the rights of defence, and infringement of the principle of the right to a fair hearing and trial.	WESTERMANN LERNSPIELVERLAG GMBH v OHIM	Article 69 (c) and (d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court Article 8(1)(b) CTMR	Comments by 23 December 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 18 January 2016
C-442/15P An appeal against the judgment of the General Court in joined Cases T-544/12 and T-546/12.	PENSA PHARMA SA v OHIM	Article 8 and Article 53 (1) of the Community Trademark Regulation 207/2009	Comments by 5 January 2016 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 25 January 2016
C-437/15P An appeal against the General Court’s judgment in Case T-222/14(concerning an application by Deluxe Laboratories, Inc. for the registration of a trade mark) on the grounds of an infringement of the first sentence of Article 75 of the CTMR in combination with Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of the CTMR	OHIM v DELUXE LABORATORIES	Article 75 of the CTMR in combination with Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of the CTMR	Comments by 04 November 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 30 November 2015
C-427/15 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns the interpretation of Article 8(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	New Wave CZ	Article 8(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC	Comments by 23 September 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 19 November 2015
C-419/15 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns an infringement of a registered Community design for a laundry ball. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Thomas Philipps	Article 32(3), Article 32(4) and Article 33(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs	Comments by 17 September 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 13 November 2015
C-405/15P An appeal to the Court of Justice against the judgment in case T-15/13 in which the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM was annulled.	OHIM v GROUP NIVELLES	Article 25(1)(b) and Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002	Comments by 28 October 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 23 November 2015
C-399/15P An appeal against the ruling of the General Court in Case T-302/15 on the grounds of force majeure, and the incorrect interpretation of the Rules of Procedure.	VICHY CATALAN v OHIM	Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of Justice Article 43(6) of the Rules of Procedure	Comments by 23 December 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 18 January 2016
C-384/15P An appeal against the Judgment of the General Court in Case T-184/13 on the grounds that the Court made several errors in reaching its decision to uphold the Respondent’s finding of likelihood of confusion.	Skype v OHIM	Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community Trade Marks	Comments by 11 November 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 07 December 2015
C-382/15P and C-383/15P An appeal against the Judgment in cases T-183/13 and T-423/12 concerning an application by Skype for the registration of a trade mark who claim that the court erred when considering the similarity of goods and services between the Contested Mark and the Interveners’ earlier mark.	Skype v OHIM	Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community Trade Mark	Comments by 11 November 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 07 December 2015
C-367/15 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns the transmission of copyrighted broadcast works. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Stowarzyszenie Oławska Telewizja Kablowa	Article 13 of Directive 2004/48/EC	Comments by 16 November 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 12 January 2016
C-364/15P An appeal against the judgment of the General Court in Case T-360/12, concerning an invalid Community trade mark registration on the grounds of a lack of distinctive character.	LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v OHIM	Article 7(i)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation	Comments by 5 January 2016 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 25 January 2016
C-363/15P An appeal against the judgment of the General Court in Case T-359/12, concerning an invalid Community trade mark registration on the grounds of a lack of distinctive character.	LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v OHIM	Article 7(1)(b), Article 7(3),and Article 52(2) CTM Regulation	Comments by 5 January 2016 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 25 January 2016
C-361/15P An appeal to the Court of Justice against the judgment in T-15/13 concerning the infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002(1) based on the assessment of the novelty of a later design.	Easy Sanitary Solutions BV	Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002(1)	Comments by 28 October 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 23 November 2015
C-346/15P An appeal against the Judgment in cases T-707/13 and T-709/13 concerning the General Court’s ruling that the mark ‘BE HAPPY’ lacked distinctive character on the ground that it could be perceived as an advertising slogan.	Steinbeck GmbH v OHIM	Article 7(1) (b) of Regulation No 207/2009	Comments by 30 September 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 26 October 2015
C-309/15 P An appeal to the Court of Justice against the Judgment of General Court in case T-580/13 concerning the registration of a trademark in relation to cleaning products, where it is claimed that the General Court failed to consider its argument that the Intervener acted with bad intention in registering an identical Community Trademark for identical classes.	REAL EXPRESS SRL v OHIM	Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2868/1995 and Regulation 207/2009	Comments by 16 December 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 11 January 2016
C-301/15 A request for a preliminary ruling from the French court in a case which concerns collecting societies and the right to authorise the reproduction and the representation in digital form of ‘out-of-print books’. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	SOULIER ET DOKE	Directive 2001/29 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society	Comments by 7 August 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 2 October 2015
C-297/15 A request for a preliminary ruling from a Danish Court in a case which concerns parallel imports of a medicinal product where the importer has repackaged the product in a new outer packaging and reaffixed the trade mark in a situation where the trade mark proprietor has marketed the product in a the same volume and packet sizes. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	FERRING LAEGEMIDLER	Article 7(2) of Directive 2008/95/EC	Comments by 5 August 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 30 September 2015
C-295/15P An appeal against the Judgment in case T-258/13 concerning the cancellation of the Community trade mark 2818680 ‘Arktis’ due to lack of genuine use.	Matratzen Concord v OHIM		Comments by 30 September 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 26 October 2015
C-280/15 A request for a preliminary ruling from an Estonian Court regarding the infringement of the applicants trade mark and their request for damages for unjust enrichment. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	NIKOLAJEVA	Article 102(1) and 9(3) of Regulation 207/2009 on the Community Trade Mark	Comments by 4 August 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 29 September 2015
C-275/15 A request for a preliminary ruling from the UK Court of Appeal in a case which concerns the interpretation of Article 9 of Directive 2001/29/EC, and in particular the phrase “access to cable of broadcasting services”. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	ITV Broadcasting & Others	Article 9 of Directive 2001/29/EC	Comments by 24 July 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 21 September 2015
C-252/15P An appeal against the Judgment in case T-250/13 concerning the registration of the TM ‘SMART Water’. The issue considered was genuine use of the trade mark.	Naazneen Investments Ltd v OHIM	Article 75 and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No. 207/2009	Comments by 23 September 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 19 October 2015
C-251/15P An appeal to the Court of Justice against the judgment in case T-596/13 concerning the figurative mark ‘Nael’ and the misapplication of Article 8(1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.	Emsibeth v OHIM	Article 8(1) (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009	Comments by 07 October 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 02 November 2015
C-230/15 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns a dispute between the parties regarding the registration of the trademark “Brite-Strike” by the Defendant, the first user, as a Benelux word mark. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Brite Strike Technologies	Article 22(4) and article 71 of Regulation 44/2001	Comments by 17 July 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 07 September 2015
C-226/15P An appeal against the General Court’s judgement in case T-378/13 regarding the registration of the Community trade Mark application English Pink no: 8610768.	APAL and Star Fruit v OHIM	Art. 65(3) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 on the Community Trade Mark Art. 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice	Comments by 19 August 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 14 September 2015
C-223/15 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns the registration of a trademark to be used by a computer programming company and the likelihood of confusion due to an aural similarity. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Combit Software	Article 1(2), the first sentence of Article 102(1) and Article 109(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark regulation	Comments by 10 July 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 28 August 2015
C-179/15 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns the unauthorised use of online advertisements as confirmation of an official commercial relationship beyond the termination of the parties contracted period, where the advert was not placed on the internet by the person featuring in it and the person featured took steps to remove it. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Daimler	Article 5(1)(b) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EED in relation to trademarks	Comments by 15 June 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 11 August 2015
C-175/15 A request from a Romanian Court for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns the alleged failure of the defendants to transfer to the claimant trademarks registered in the EU under two distribution contracts. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Taser International	Article 267 TFEU, relates to the interpretation of Articles 22(4), 23(5) and 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the regulation’)	Comments by 18 June 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 14 August 2015
C-174/15 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns E-lending and copyright. The referring Court asks whether “lending” in the Directive includes making digital copies of various books available for users to download in such a way that the downloaded copy becomes unusable after a certain period and during that period the original copy cannot be downloaded by others. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Vereiniging Openbare Bibliotheken	Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Directive 2006/115/EC Article 4 of Directive 2001/29/EC	Comments by 8 June 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 5 August 2015
C-169/15 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns the application of the Uniform Benelux Law on designs and models (the old BTMW) Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Montis Design	Article 21(3) of the Uniform Benelux Law on designs and models (the old BTMW)	Comments by 4 June 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 31 July 2015
C-166/15 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns the legal protection of computer programs. The criminal defendants allegedly sold various copyright protected products which, as computer programmes, are protected as literary works. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Ranks and Vasiļevičs	Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 2009/24 and Article 1(1) of the Directive	Comments by 9 June 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 5 August 2015
C-163/15 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which is a reference from the German Court relating to potential enforcement action proposed by the licensee of a trade mark. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Hassan	Article 23(1) of Regulation 207/2009 on the Community trade mark	Comments by 26 May 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 22 July 2015
C-160/15 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns a reference from the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. GS Media is a company which runs a website which allegedly infringed copyright in relation to photographs taken for a feature by publishing a hyperlink on its website that allowed the public to access those photos on an external, third party hosted site which also did not have consent to publish the photos in question. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	GS MEDIA	Article 3(1) Directive 2001/29	Comments by 12 June 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 31 July 2015
C-117/15 A request for a preliminary ruling from a German Court in a case which concerns a rehabilitation facility which has a number of TV screens showing various TV programs in recreation and training rooms which can be watched by people making use of these rooms. The applicant is appealing the collecting societies claim for royalties from the applicant as they interpret the availability of the TV screens as a “communication to the public”. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	REHA TRAINING	Art. 3(1) of the Copyright Directive and/or within the meaning of Art. 8(2) of the Rental Rights Directive	Comments by 12 June 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 23 June 2015
C-110/15 A request for a preliminary ruling from the Italian Court concerning the compatibility of Italian legislation on copyright, and in particular on compensation due to holders of copyright-related rights for the private reproduction, on any medium of phonograms and videos made by natural persons for personal use (not for profit), with Directive 2001/29/EC Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Nokia Italia and others	European Enforcement Directive (Directive 2001/29/EC)	Comments by 11 May 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 7 July 2015
C-99/15 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case regarding a reference from the Spanish Court concerning the damages to be paid as a result of the unauthorised use of excerpts from an individual’s audio-visual work. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Liffers	Article 13(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC	Comments by 27 April 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 23 June 2015
C-62/15 P An appeal to the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court in case T-176/13	DTL Corporación v OHIM	Article 64(1) and 75 of Council Regulation 207/2009 on the Community Trade Mark	Comments by 20 May 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 15 June 2015
C-57/15 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns the issue of costs following the withdrawal of an appeal on an issue of infringement of a patent. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	UNITED VIDEO PROPERTIES	European Enforcement Directive (Directive 2004/48/EC)	Comments by 31 March 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 27 May 2015
C-50/15 P An appeal to the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court in case T-173/11	Kurt Hesse and Lutter & Partner GMBH v OHIM	Article 8(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (CTMR) Article 8(5) of the CTMR	Comments by 13 May 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 08 June 2015
C-43/15 P An appeal to the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court in case T-595/13	BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgerate GMBH v OHIM	Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 207/2009	Comments by 20 May 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 15 June 2015
C-30/15 P An appeal to the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court in case T-450/09	Simba toys v OHIM	Article 7(1)(e)(i) of Regulation No 40/94 Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 40/94 Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of Regulation No 40/94 Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009	Comments by 13 May 2015 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 08 June 2015

References to the Court of Justice of the European Union: 2015

Table of cases

Case:C-689/15

Case: C-654/15

Case: C-641/15

Case: C-617/15

Case: C-610/15

Case: C-572/15

Case: C-527/15

Case: C-494/15

Case: C-427/15

Case: C-419/15

Case: C-367/15

Case: C-301/15

Case: C-297/15

Case: C-280/15

Case: C-275/15

Case: C-230/15

Case: C-223/15

Case: C-179/15

Case: C-175/15

Case: C-174/15

Case: C-169/15

Case: C-166/15

Case: C-163/15

Case: C-160/15

Case: C-117/15

Case: C-110/15

Case: C-99/15

Case: C-57/15

Is this page useful?

Help us improve GOV.UK

Help us improve GOV.UK

Cookies on GOV.UK

Table of cases

Case:C-689/15

Case: C-654/15

Case: C-641/15

Case: C-617/15

Case: C-610/15

Case: C-572/15

Case: C-527/15

Case: C-494/15

Case: C-427/15

Case: C-419/15

Case: C-367/15

Case: C-301/15

Case: C-297/15

Case: C-280/15

Case: C-275/15

Case: C-230/15

Case: C-223/15

Case: C-179/15

Case: C-175/15

Case: C-174/15

Case: C-169/15

Case: C-166/15

Case: C-163/15

Case: C-160/15

Case: C-117/15

Case: C-110/15

Case: C-99/15

Case: C-57/15

Is this page useful?

Help us improve GOV.UK

Help us improve GOV.UK