References to the Court of Justice of the European Union: 2017

Q: Case: C-629/17

In relation to the wording in Article 3 (c) of Directive 2008/95/EC, ‘indications which may serve, in trade, to designate other characteristics of the goods or service’, when used in the assessment of the permissibility of the registration of signs or indications intended to be adopted in order to designate wine products, must that wording be interpreted to the effect that it covers, in the verbal expressions adopted as a mark, including a protected geographical name as a designation of origin of wine, a reference to the word ‘adega’ [winery] – in the sense of a term currently used to identify the facilities and sites where the production process for such goods takes place – in the verbal expression adopted as a mark, in situations where that word (adega) is one of the various verbal elements which make up the corporate name of the legal entity seeking to register the mark?

Question 1

Case: C-690/17

Accepted Answer

Is an individual trade mark used in such a way as to infringe rights for the purposes of point (b) of the second sentence of Article 9(1) of the EC Trade Mark Regulation/EU Trade Mark Regulation or point (a) of the second sentence of Article 5(1) of the Trade Mark Directive in the case where

the individual trade mark is affixed to a product in respect of which the individual trade mark is not protected;
the affixing of the individual trade mark by a third party is perceived by the public as a ‘test seal’, which is to say that, although the product has been manufactured and placed on the market by a third party not acting under the control of the trade mark proprietor, the trade mark proprietor has tested some of the characteristics of that product [Or. 3] and, on that basis, given it a particular rating shown on the test seal; and
the individual trade mark is registered for, inter alia, ‘consumer information and consultancy with regard to the selection of goods and services, in particular using test and investigation results and by means of quality judgments’?

Should the Court of Justice answer Question 1 in the negative:

Is an individual trade mark used in such a way as to infringe rights for the purposes of point (c) of the second sentence of Article 9(1) of the EC Trade Mark Regulation and Article 5(2) of the Trade Mark Directive in the case where

the individual trade mark has a reputation only as a test seal as described in Question 1; and
the individual trade mark is used as a test seal by the third party?

Question 2

Case: C-683/17

Accepted Answer

Does the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union of Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC preclude national legislation – in the present case, the provision in Article 2(1)(i) of the Codigo de Direitos de Autor e Direitos Conexos (Code on Copyright and Related Rights) (CADC) – which confers copyright protection on works of applied art, industrial designs and works of design which, in addition of the utilitarian purpose they serve, create their own visual and distinctive effect from an aesthetic point of view, their originality being the fundamental criterion which governs the grant of protection in the area of copyright?
Does the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union of Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC preclude national legislation - in the present case, the provision in Article 2(1)(i) of the CDADC – which confers copyright protection on works of applied art, industrial designs and works of design if, in the light of particularly rigorous assessment of their artistic character, and taking account the dominant views in cultural and institutional circles, they qualify as an ‘artistic creation’ or ‘work of art’?

Question 3

Case: C-629/17

Accepted Answer

In relation to the wording in Article 3(c) of Directive 2008/95/EC, ‘indications which may serve, in trade, to designate other characteristics of the goods or service’, when used in the assessment of the permissibility of the registration of signs or indications intended to be adopted in order to designate wine products, must that wording be interpreted to the effect that it covers, in the verbal expressions adopted as a mark, including a protected geographical name as a designation of origin of wine, a reference to the word ‘adega’ [winery] – in the sense of a term currently used to identify the facilities and sites where the production process for such goods takes place – in the verbal expression adopted as a mark, in situations where that word (adega) is one of the various verbal elements which make up the corporate name of the legal entity seeking to register the mark?

Question 4

Case: C-578/17

Accepted Answer

For the interpretation of Article 2 of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version) and the condition relating to the distinctive character of a trade mark within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) thereof, is it of relevance whether the trade mark is to be registered as a figurative mark or a colour mark?
If the classification of the mark as a colour mark or figurative mark is of importance in the assessment of its distinctive character, is the mark, regardless of its representation as a drawing, to be registered as a colour mark in accordance with the trade mark application, or can it be registered only as a figurative mark?
If it is possible to register, as a colour mark, a mark represented in the form of a drawing in the trade mark application, is it necessary for the registration as a colour mark of a mark which has been graphically illustrated in the trade mark application with the accuracy required by the case-law of the Court of Justice relating to colour marks (and which is not the registration as a mark of a colour in itself, abstract, without shape or contours), is it necessary to submit in addition solid evidence of use as required by the Patentti- ja rekisterihallitus or any such evidence?

Question 5

Case: C-527/17

Accepted Answer

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

Must Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of that regulation, an authorisation under Directive 93/42/EEC for a combined medical device and medicinal product within the meaning of Article 1(4) of Directive 93/42/EEC is to be treated as a valid marketing authorisation under Directive 2001/83/EC, where, as part of the authorisation procedure laid down in Annex I, Section 7.4, first paragraph, to Directive 93/42/EEC, the quality, safety and usefulness of the medicinal product component has been verified by the medicinal products authority of a Member State in accordance with Directive 2001/83/EC?

Question 6

Case: C-521/17

Accepted Answer

Is Article 4(c) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights to be interpreted as meaning that Member States are required to recognise collecting societies of trade mark proprietors as persons with standing to pursue legal remedies in their own name to defend the rights of trade mark proprietors and to bring actions before the courts in their own name to enforce the rights of trade mark proprietors?

Are Articles 12, 13 and 14 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 even a service provider whose service consists in registering IP addresses, thus enabling them to be anonymously linked to domains, and in renting out those IP addresses, is to be regarded as a service provider within the meaning of those provisions to whom the exemptions from liability provided for there apply?

Question 7

Case: C-516/17

Accepted Answer

Do the provisions of EU law on the exceptions or limitations to the rights concerned laid down in Article 5(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC allow any latitude in terms of implementation in national law?
In which way are the fundamental rights of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be taken into account when determining the scope of the exceptions or limitations provided for in Article 5(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC to the exclusive right of authors to reproduce (Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC) and communicate to the public their works, including the right to make their works available to the public (Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC)?
Can the fundamental rights of freedom of information (second sentence of Article 11(1) of the Charter) or freedom of the media (Article 11(2) of the Charter) justify exceptions or limitations to the exclusive rights of authors to reproduce (Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC) and communicate to the public their works, including the right to make their works available to the public (Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC), beyond the exceptions or limitations provided for in Article 5(3) of Directive 2001/29/EC?
Is the making available to the public of copyright-protected works on the web portal of a press undertaking to be excluded from consideration as the reporting of current events not requiring permission as provided for in Article 5(3)(c), second case, of Directive 2001/29/EC, because it was possible and reasonable for the press undertaking to obtain the author’s consent before making his works available to the public?
Is there no publication for quotation purposes under Article 5(3)(d) of Directive 2001/29/EC if quoted textual works or parts thereof are not inextricably integrated into the new text — for example, by way of insertions or footnotes — but are made available to the public on the Internet by means of a link in the form of PDF files which can be downloaded independently of the new text?

Question 8

Case: C-476/17

Accepted Answer

The following questions are referred to the court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 267 TFEU.

Is there an infringement of the phonogram producer’s exclusive right under Article 2(c) of Directive 2001/29/EC to reproduce its phonogram if very short audio snatches are taken from its phonogram and transferred to another phonogram?
Is a phonogram which contains very short audio snatches transferred from another phonogram a copy of the other phonogram within the meaning of Article 9(1)(b) of Directive 2006/115/EC?
Can the Member States enact a provision which – in the manner of Paragraph 24(1) of the Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (German Law on Copyright and Related Rights) – inherently limits the scope of protection of the phonogram producer’s exclusive right to reproduce (Article 2(c) of Directive 2001/29/EC) and to distribute (Article 9(1)(b) of Directive 2006/115/EC) its phonogram in such a way that an independent work created in free use of its phonogram may be exploited without the phonogram producer’s consent?
Can it be said that a work or other subject matter is being used for quotation purposes within the meaning of Article 5(3)(d) of Directive 2001/29/EC if it is not evident that another person’s work or another person’s subject matter is being used?
Do the provisions of EU law on the reproduction right and the distribution right of the phonogram producer (Article 2(c) of Directive 2001/29/EC and Article 9(1)(b) of Directive 2006/115/EC) and the exceptions or limitations to those rights (Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/29/EC and Article 10(2), first sentence, of Directive 2006/115/EC) allow any latitude in terms of implementation in national law?
In what way are the fundamental rights set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be taken into account when ascertaining the scope of protection of the exclusive right of the phonogram producer to reproduce (Article 2(c) of Directive 2001/29/EC) and to distribute (Article 9(1)(b) of Directive 2006/115/EC) its phonogram and the scope of the exceptions or limitations to those rights (Article 5(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/29/EC and Article 10(2), first sentence, of Directive 2006/115/EC)?

Question 9

Case: C-443/17

Accepted Answer

The High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court refers the following question to the CJEU:

Is Article 3(d) of the SPC Regulation to be interpreted as permitting the grant of an SPC where the marketing authorisation referred to in Article 3(b) is the first authorisation within the scope of the basic patent to place the product on the market as a medicinal product and where the product is a new formulation of an old active ingredient?

Question 10

Case: C-310/17

Accepted Answer

The Gerechtshof, ruling on appeal: requests the Court of Justice of the European Union to give a ruling on the following questions:

(a) Does Union law preclude the taste of a food product - as the own intellectual creation of the author - being granted copyright protection? In particular:

(b) Is copyright protection precluded by the fact that the expression ‘literary and artistic works’ in Article 2(1) of the Berne Convention, which is binding on all the Member States of the European Union, includes ‘every production in the literary, scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its expression’, but that the examples cited in that provision only relate to creations which can be perceived by sight and/or by hearing?

(c) Does the (possible) instability of a food product and/or the subjective nature of the taste experience preclude the taste of a food product being eligible for copyright protection?

(d) Does the system of exclusive rights and restrictions, as governed by Articles 2 to 5 of Directive 2001/29/EC, preclude the copyright protection of the taste of a food product?
If the answer to question 1(a) is in the negative:

(a) What are the requirements for the copyright protection of the taste of a food product?

(b) Is the copyright protection of a taste based solely on the taste as such or (also) on the recipe of the food product?

(c) What evidence should a party who, in infringement proceedings, claims to have created a copyright-protected taste of a food product, put forward? Is it sufficient for that party to present the food product involved in the proceedings to the court so that the court, by tasting and smelling, can form its own opinion as to whether the taste of the food product meets the requirements for copyright protection? Or should the applicant (also) provide a description of the creative choices involved in the taste composition and/or the recipe on the basis of which the taste can be considered to be the author’s own intellectual creation?

(d) How should the court in infringement proceedings determine whether the taste of the defendant’s food product corresponds to such an extent with the taste of the applicant’s food product that it constitutes an infringement of copyright? Is the decisive factor here that the overall impressions of the two tastes are the same?

Question 11

Case: C-148/17

Accepted Answer

The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 14 of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25) and Article 34(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark:

Is the fact that the invalidity or revocation of a national trade mark which forms the basis of a claim for the seniority of an EU trade mark and which has been surrendered or allowed to lapse may be established a posteriori only where the conditions of invalidity or revocation are present not only at the time when the trade mark was surrendered or allowed to lapse but also at the time of the judicial decision establishing its invalidity or revocation, compatible with Article 14 of Directive 2008/95/EC?
If the first question is answered in the affirmative: Does claiming seniority under Article 34(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 have the effect that the right under the national trade mark lapses and can no longer be used in such a way as to maintain rights attached to it, or is the national trade mark preserved by virtue of EU law, even though it no longer exists in the register of the Member State concerned, with the result that it can and must continue to be used in such a way as to maintain the rights attached to it

Question 12

Case: C-129/17

Accepted Answer

The questions referred for a preliminary ruling:

(a) Do Article 5 of Directive 2008/95/EC and Article 9 of Council

Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) cover the right of the trade-mark proprietor to oppose the removal, by a third party, without the consent of the trade-mark proprietor, of all signs identical to the trade marks which had been applied to the goods (debranding), in the case where the goods concerned have never previously been traded within the European Economic Area, such as goods placed in a customs warehouse, and where the removal by the third party occurs with a view to importing or placing those goods on the market within the European Economic Area?

(b) Does it make any difference to the answer to Question (a) above whether the importation of those goods or their placing on the market within the European Economic Area occurs under its own distinctive sign applied by the third party (rebranding)?

2. Does it make any difference to the answer to the first question whether the goods thus imported or placed on the market are, on the basis of their outward appearance or model, still identified by the relevant average consumer as originating from the trademark proprietor?

Question 13

Case: C-121/17

Accepted Answer

The question to be referred under Article 267 TFEU:

What are the criteria for deciding whether “the product is protected by a basic patent in force” in Article 3(a) of Regulation No. 469/2009?

Case and subject	Parties	Legislation	Pre-hearing
C-698/17P - Trade mark case Appeal brought on 13 December 2017 by Mr Toni Klement against the judgement of the General Court delivered on 10 October 2017 in Case T-211/14 RENV.	Toni Klement v EUIPO		Comments by 4 May 2018. Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU - 28 May 2018.
C-693/17P Appeal brought on 10/12/17 by BMB against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 3/10/17 in Case T-695/15: BMB v EUIPO.	BMB v EUIPO	- Article 138(1) - Article 25 (l)(e) of the Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12/12/01 on Community Design. -Article 8(l)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009(2)	Comments by 11 May 2018. Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU - 4 June 2018.
C-690/17 The Oberlandesgericht Dusseldorf refers to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling the below questions on the interpretation on the legislations listed. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	OKO-Test Verlag GmbH v Dr. Rudolf Liebe Nachf. GmbH & Co.KG	Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) [No 207/2009] of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1; ‘the EC Trade Mark Regulation’) Article 9 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p 1; ‘the EU Trade Mark Regulation’) Article 5 of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25; ‘the Trade Mark Directive’)	Comments by 6 February 2018 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 3 April 2018.
C-683/17 Request for a preliminary ruling submitted to the CJEU. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Cofemel v G-Star Raw CV	-Article 267(b) TFEU -Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC preclude national legislation -Article 2(1)(i) of the Codigo de Direitos de Autor e Direitos Conexos (Code on Copyright and Related Rights) (CDADC)	Comments by 7 February 2018 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 3 April 2018.
C-668/17P Appeal brought against the judgement of the General Court (Second Chamber) in Case T-276/16.	Viridis Pharmaceutical Ltd v EUIPO	- Article 58(1)(a) - Article 8(3)(i) of Directive 2001/83/EC - Article 58(1)(a)	Comments by 21 March 2018 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 16 April 2018.
C-653/17P Appeal case against the judgement of the General Court in Case T-375/15	VM Vermogens v EUIPO	- Articles 65(2), 7(1)(c), 7(1)(b), 28(8) 76(2) and 75 of the EU Trade mark regulation. - Articles 17 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. - Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice	Comments by 28 March 2018 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 23 April 2018.
C-650/17 Preliminary Reference on the Interpretation of Regulation (EC) 469/2009, linked to C-114/18 Sandoz and Hexal	Royalty Pharma Collection Trust	Regulation (EC) 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council
C-629/17 Request for a preliminary ruling for an interpretation by the CJEU of the provision for a refusal to register marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate other characteristics of the product. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	J. Portugal Ramos Vinhos SA v Adega Cooperativa de Borba CRL	Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2008/95/EC.	Comments by 29 December 2017 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 26 February 2018.
C-578/17 Request for a preliminary ruling submitted to the Court of Justice. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Oy Hartwall Ab	Article 267 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union.	Comments by 21 November 2017 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 17 January 2018.
C-542/17P Appeal brought on 14 September 2017 by Allstate Insurance Company against the judgement of the General Court deliver on 5 July 2017 in Case T-3/16.	Allstate Insurance Company v EUIPO	Articles 7 (1)(c) and 7(2) EUTMR by applying erroneous criteria in the assessment of the absolute ground of descriptiveness within the meaning of the aforementioned provision.	Comments by 31 January 2018 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 26 February 2018
C-527/17 A request for a preliminary ruling concerning a supplementary protection certificate application involving a combined medical device and medicinal product. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	LN	Interpretation of Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009	Comments by Midday on 7 November 2017 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 15 December 2017
C-525/17P Appeal case brought to the CJEU on different Trade Mark cases ordered by the General Court.	L’Oreal v EUIPO	Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No. 207/2009.	Comments by 27 December 2017 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 22 January 2018.
C-524/17P Appeal case brought to the CJEU on different Trade Mark cases ordered by the General Court.	L’Oreal v EUIPO	Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No. 207/2009.	Comments by 27 December 2017 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 22 January 2018.
C-523/17P Appeal case brought to the CJEU on different Trade Mark cases ordered by the General Court.	L’Oreal v EUIPO	Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No. 207/2009.	Comments by 27 December 2017 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 22 January 2018.
C-522/17P Appeal case brought to the CJEU on different Trade Mark cases ordered by the General Court.	L’Oreal v EUIPO	Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No. 207/2009.	Comments by 27 December 2017 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 22 January 2018.
C-521/17 Action brought by c.v. SNB-REACT u.a. against Deepak Mehta for an injunction prohibiting the continued infringement of trade mark rights and damages Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	SNB-REACT v Deepak Mehta	Second paragraph of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.	Comments by 26 October 2017 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 22 December 2017
C-519/17P Appeal case brought to the CJEU on different Trade Mark cases ordered by the General Court.	L’Oreal v EUIPO	Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No. 207/2009.	Comments by 27 December 2017 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 22 January 2018.
C-516/17 Action for an injunction brought by the author of a text published in book form but amended by the book’s publisher prohibiting the publication of that text and the author’s original manuscript. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Spiegel Online GmbH v Volker Beck	Interpretation of EU law, Article 267 TFEU	Comments by 11 October 2017 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 7 December 2017
C-505/17	RENV Groupe Lea Nature v EUIPO	Article 8(1) (b) EUMTR, based on a violation of the settled case-law pertaining to the assessment of the likelihood of confusion between the marks. Article 8(5) EUMTR, based on a violation of the settled case-law rendered in relation to uses detrimental to the repute of an earlier mark.	Comments by 3 January 2018 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 29 January 2018.
C-476/17 Copyright: Phonogram Producer’s exclusive right of reproduction. Use by third party in new independent work Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Pelham E.A	Interpretation of EU law, Article 267 TFEU and Article 2(c) of Directive 2001/29/EC	Comments by 29 September 2017 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 23 November 2017
C-443/17 A request for preliminary ruling lodged concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Abraxis Bioscience LLC & The Comptroller General of Patents	Article 267 TFEU	Comments by 6 September 2017 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 2 October 2017
C-340/17P Appeal brought on 7 June 2017 BY Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) Inc. against the Judgement of the Genral Court (First Chamber) delivered on 29 March 2017 in Case T-638/15	Alcohol Countermeasure Systems (International) v EUIPO.	Violation of Regulation 207/2009 and article 57 (2) and Regulation 2868/95 (articles 22(2) and 40%5)).	Comments by 1 November 2017 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 27 November 2017
C-325/17P Appeal brought on 31 May 2017 by Windrush Aka LLP against the judgement of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 22 March 2017 in Case T-336/15: Windrush Aka LLP v EUIPO	Windrush Aka LLP v EUIPO	Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court of 4 March 2015.	Comments by 1 November 2017 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 27 November 2017
C-310/17 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns the production and sale of a cheese product, infringes the “taste” of another product which the claimant stipulates should be protected by copyright. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Levola Hengelo	Article 267 TFEU; Article 9(1) TRIPS; Articles 2 & 9(1) of the Berne Convention; Directive 2001/29/EC	Comments by 20 July 2017 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 21 September 2017
C-218/17 P Appeal brought on 26 April 2017 by Natural Instinct Ltd against the judgement of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 February 2017 in case T-30/16. EU Trade Mark, application for registration of the figurative mark Natural Instinct Dog and Cat food as nature intended.	M. I. Industries/Natural Instinct v EUIPO	Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice	Comments by 15 November 2017 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 8 December 2017
C-217/17 Registration of designs - uncertainty in respect of subject matter of the design - necessary quality of design allowing reproduction.	Mast-Jägermeister Se v EUIPO	Article 46(2) and (3) of Regulation No 6/2002	Comments by 27 September 2017 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 23 October 2017
C-148/17 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns an action for invalidity or revocation of a German national trade mark which forms the basis of a claim for the seniority of an EU trade mark. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg and Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf	Article 14 of Directive 2008/95/EC Article 34(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009	Comments by 19 May 2017 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 17 July 2017
C-139-17 Appeal brought on 20 March 2017 by QuaMa Quality Management GmbH against the judgement of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 17 January 2017 in Case T-225/15.	QuaMa Quality Management GmbH v EUIPO	Article 41(1) of Regulation No 207/2009. Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.	Comments by 8 November 2017 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ 4 December 2017.
C-129/17 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns an action for infringement of an EU trade mark. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd, Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe BV and Duma Forklifts NV, G.S. International BVBA	Article 5 of Directive 2008/95/EC Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC)No 207/2009 Article 267 TFEU	Comments by 17 May 2017 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 13 July 2017
C-121/17 A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns certificates for medicinal products Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Teva UK, Accord Healthcare Limited, Lupin Limited, Lupin Europe Limited, Generics (UK) Limited and Gilead Sciences Inc	Article 267 TFEU Article 3(a) of Regulation No. 469/2009	Comments by 25 April 2017 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 21 June 2017
C-101/17 P European Trade Marks: appeal against the decision of the General Court in cases T-82/14	Verus Eood & European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	Article 52, 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property TRIPS Agreement (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual-Property Rights) Article 16, 17(2), 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Article 17 of the ‘1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and its additional protocols	Comments by 5 July 2017 Deadline for UK to apply to intervene 31 July 2017
C-95/17 P European Trade Marks: appeal against the decision of the General Court in cases T-112/13	European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) & Mondelez UK Holdings & Services	Article 36, Statute of the Court of Justice Articles 7(3) and 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009	Comments by 7 June 2017 Deadline for UK to apply to intervene 3 July 2017
C-86/17 P European Trade Mark appeal against the decision of the General Court in case T227/15	Redpur GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)	Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009	Comments by 24 July 2017 Deadline for UK to apply to intervene 14 August 2017
C-85/17 P European Trade Marks: appeal against the decision of the General Court in cases T-112/13	Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, European Union Intellectual Property Office, Société des produits Nestlé SA	Article 36, Statute of the Court of Justice C-215/14 Société des Produits Nestlé,	Comments by 22 June 2017 Deadline for UK to apply to intervene 17 July 2017
C-84/17 P European Trade Marks: appeal against the decision of the General Court in cases T-112/13	Société des produits Nestlé SA, Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd, European Union Intellectual Property Office	Article 7(3) and Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No. 207/2009	Comments by 22 June 2017 Deadline for UK to apply to intervene 17 July 2017
C-75/17 P European Trade Marks: appeal against the decision of the General Court in cases T-217/15	European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) & Fiesta Hotels and Resorts	Article 8(4) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 Article 8(4)(b) of the EU trade mark Regulation	Comments by 31 May 2017 Deadline for UK to apply to intervene 26 June 2017
C-32/17 P European Trade Marks: appeal against the decision of the General Court in cases T-268/15 and T-272/15	European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) & Apcoa Parking Holdings GmbH	Article 7(1)(b) of the European Trade Mark Regulation	Comments by 31 May 2017 Deadline for UK to apply to intervene 26 June 2017
C-26/17 P European Trade Marks: appeal against the decision of the General Court in cases T-579/14	European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Birkenstock Sales GmbH	Article 7(1)(b) of the European Trade Mark Regulation	Comments by 31 May 2017 Deadline for UK to apply to intervene 26 June 2017

References to the Court of Justice of the European Union: 2017

Table of cases

Case: C-690/17

Case: C-683/17

Case: C-629/17

Case: C-578/17

Case: C-527/17

Case: C-521/17

Case: C-516/17

Case: C-476/17

Case: C-443/17

Case: C-310/17

Case: C-148/17

Case: C-129/17

Case: C-121/17

Is this page useful?

Help us improve GOV.UK

Help us improve GOV.UK

Cookies on GOV.UK

Table of cases

Case: C-690/17

Case: C-683/17

Case: C-629/17

Case: C-578/17

Case: C-527/17

Case: C-521/17

Case: C-516/17

Case: C-476/17

Case: C-443/17

Case: C-310/17

Case: C-148/17

Case: C-129/17

Case: C-121/17

Is this page useful?

Help us improve GOV.UK

Help us improve GOV.UK