Notice

References to the Court of Justice of the European Union: 2020

Updated 31 January 2022

Table of cases

The way we report on CJEU cases has changed. Sign up to receive alerts.

Cases are sorted numerically.

Case and subject	Parties	Legislation	Pre-hearing
C-653/20P Reference for a preliminary ruling — Processing of personal data in the electronic communications sector - Directive 2002/58/EC	Guillaume Vincenti v EUIPO & others	Article 15(1) Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of European Union	Comments by 12 May 2021 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 3 June 2021
C-559/20 -Copyright Enforcement Request for a preliminary ruling - Enforcement Directive 2004/48/EC - Concerning reimbursement of lawyers’ fees for a warning notice relating to file sharing - ceiling on the recoverable amount Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Koch Media GmbH v FU	Articles 2, 3, 10, 13 and 14 and recitals 14, 17 and 26 of Directive 2004/48 Article 8 of Directive 2001/29 Articles 1 and 7 of Directive 2009/24	Comments by 24 December 2020 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 18 March 2021
C-531/20 Interpretation of Article3(1) and 14 of Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights - concerning an infringement of a European trade mark and the reimbursement costs incurred Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	NovaText v Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg	Article3(1) and 14 of Directive 2004/48/EC	Comments by 10 December 2020 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 5 March 2021
C-466/20 HEITEC - Trade marks - request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	HEITEC AG V HEITECH Promotion GmbH RW	Interpretation of EU law, Article 267 TFEU Regulation (EC) No 207/2009	Comments by 2 December 2020 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 26 February 2021
C-455/18 Appeal of case trademark case T-92/18	Oliver Spieker v EUIPO	Regulation 1067/2017-4	Comments by 17 February 2021 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 9 March 2021
C-433/20 Meaning ‘on any medium’ in Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society – servers owned by third parties Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Austro-Mechana v Strato AG	Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC	Comments by 5 November 2020 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 30 December 2020
C-421/20 Acacia – Designs - Request for a preliminary ruling on interpretation of Article 82(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (Community Designs Regulation; ‘the CDR’) Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Acacia Srl v Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft	Article 82(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001	Comments by 30 October 2020 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ by 24 December 2020
Case C-253/20 JT1 amd C-254/20 Trade marks -request for preliminary ruling (joined preliminary references) Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Impexeco and Others	Articles 34 to 36 TFEU	Comments by 3 August 2020 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ by 28 September 2020
Case C-204/20 Request for preliminary ruling on the question if a trade mark owner can oppose repackaging or relabelling of product by a parallel importer.	Bayer Intellectual Property v kohlpharma	Article 15 of Directive 2015/2436 Article 47a of Directive 2001/83EC	Comments by 8 July 2020 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ by 1 September 2020
Case C-133/20 Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	European Pallet Association eV and PHZ BV	Regulation (EC) No 207/2009	Comments by 1 May 2020 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ by 25 June 2020
C-123/20 Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Ferrari Spa v Mansory Design v Holding GMBH and WH	Article 267 TFEU and Article 23 Regulation (EC) 6/2002	Comments by 30 April 2020 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ by 24 June 2020
C-63/20P Appeal of case trademark case T-181/19 erroneous interpretation and application of Article 90 and 91, in particular, of the Staff Regulations; concomitantly, the appellant’s fundamental rights to a fair trial and to sound administration have been seriously breached.	Sigrid Dickmanns v European Union Intellectual Property Office	Article 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations	Comments by 1 July 2020 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the ECJ by 4 August 2020
C-53/20 Hengstenberg - concerning Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Hengstenberg GmbH & Co. KG	Article 49(3) and (4) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012; Article 267 TFEU	Comments by 24 March 2020 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 18 May 2020
C-13/20 Request for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Directive 91/250/EEC on the legal protection of computer programs Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Top System SA v Belgian State	Article 5(1) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991	Comments by 03 March 2020 Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJEU 24 April 2020

Case: C-559/20

1. a) Is Article 14 of the Enforcement Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the provision covers necessary lawyers’ fees as ‘legal costs’ or as ‘other expenses’ incurred by a holder of intellectual property rights within the meaning of Article 2 of the Enforcement Directive by virtue of the fact that he asserts, out of court, a right to apply for a prohibitory injunction against an infringer of those rights by way of a warning notice?
   
   b) In the event that 1a) is answered in the negative: Is Article 13 of the Enforcement Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the provision covers the lawyers’ fees referred to in 1a) in the form of damages?

2. a) Is EU law, particularly with regard to – Articles 3, 13 and 14 of the Enforcement Directive, – Article 8 of the Copyright Directive, and – Article 7 of the Computer Program Directive to be interpreted as meaning that a holder of intellectual property rights within the meaning of Article 2 of the Enforcement Directive is in principle entitled to reimbursement of the full amount of the lawyers’ fees referred to in 1a), or at least a reasonable and substantial proportion of those fees, even if – the alleged infringement has been committed by a natural person outside his trade or profession, and – a national provision provides, for such a case, that such lawyers’ fees are generally recoverable only after the value in dispute has been reduced?
   
   b) In the event that Question 2a) is answered in the affirmative: Is the EU law referred to in Question 2a) to be interpreted as meaning that an exception to the principle referred to in 2a), according to which the rightholder must be reimbursed the full amount of the lawyers’ fees referred to in 1a), or at least a reasonable and substantial proportion of those fees, taking account of other factors (such as, for instance, how current the work is, the period of publication and the infringement by a natural person outside the interests of his trade or profession), is to be considered KOCH MEDIA 3 even if the infringement of intellectual property rights within the meaning of Article 2 of the Enforcement Directive consists in file sharing, that is to say making a work available to the public by offering it for free download to all users on a freely accessible exchange platform that has no digital rights management?

Case: C-531/20

II. The following question is referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union on the interpretation of Article 3(1) and 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 (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45): Are Article 3(1) and Article 14 of Directive 2004/48/EC to be interpreted as precluding national legislation imposing an obligation on the unsuccessful party to reimburse the costs incurred by the successful party for assistance by a patent lawyer in proceedings brought under trade mark law, whether or not the patent lawyer’s assistance was necessary for the purpose of appropriate legal action?

Case: C-466/20

1. Can acquiescence within the meaning of Article 9(1) and (2) of Directive 2008/95/EC and Article 54(1) and (2) and Article 111(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 be excluded not only by means of an EN SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING - CASE C-466/20 2 administrative or court action, but also through conduct not involving a court or administrative authority?

2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Does the sending of a warning letter, in which the proprietor of the earlier sign, before initiating legal proceedings, requires the proprietor of the later sign to agree to refrain from using the sign, and to enter into an obligation to pay a contractual penalty in the event of an infringement, constitute conduct precluding acquiescence within the meaning of Article 9(1) and (2) of Directive 2008/95/EC and Article 54(1) and (2) and Article 111(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009?

3. When seeking judicial redress, is the bringing of the action before the court or the receipt of the action by the defendant decisive for calculating the five-year acquiescence period for the purposes of Article 9(1) and (2) of Directive 2008/95/EC and Article 54(1) and (2) and Article 111(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009? Is it significant in this regard that receipt of the action by the defendant is delayed beyond the expiry of the five-year period through the fault of the proprietor of the earlier trade mark?

4. Does the limitation of rights in accordance with Article 9(1) and (2) of Directive 2008/95/EC and Article 54(1) and (2) and Article 111(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 encompass consequential claims under trade mark law, for example, claims for compensation, provision of information or destruction, as well as prohibitory injunctions?

Case: C-433/20

1. Is the expression ‘on any medium’ in Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (‘Directive 2001/29’) to be interpreted as meaning that it also includes servers owned by third parties which make available to natural persons (customers) for private use (and for ends that are neither directly nor indirectly commercial) storage space on [Or. 2] those servers which those customers use for reproduction by storage (‘cloud computing’)?

2. If so: is the provision cited in Question 1 to be interpreted as meaning that it is applicable to national legislation under which the author is entitled to equitable remuneration (remuneration for exploitation of the right of reproduction on storage media), in the case: - where a work (which has been broadcast, made available to the public or recorded on a storage medium produced for commercial purposes) is by its nature likely to be reproduced for personal or private use by being stored ‘on a storage medium of any kind which is suitable for such reproduction and, in the course of a commercial activity, is placed on the market in national territory’, - and where the storage method used in that context is that described in Question 1?

Case: C-421/20

1. In proceedings for an infringement of Community designs, can the national court dealing with the infringement proceedings having international jurisdiction pursuant to Article 82(5) of the CDR apply the national law of the Member State in which the court dealing with the infringement proceedings is situated (lex fori) to subsequent claims in relation to the territory of its Member State?

2. If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Can the ‘initial place of infringement’ for the purposes of the CJEU judgments in Cases C-24/16, C-25/16 (Nintendo v BigBen) regarding the determination of the law applicable to subsequent claims under Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (‘Rome II’) (‘the Rome II Regulation’) also lie in the Member State [Or. 3] where the consumers to whom internet advertising is addressed are located and where goods infringing designs are put on the market within the meaning of Article 19 of the CDR, in so far as only the offering and the putting on the market in that Member State are challenged, even if the internet offers on which the offering and the putting on the market are based were launched in another Member State?

Case: C-253/20 and C-254/20

Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union;

1. Must Articles 34 to 36 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that, where a branded medicine (reference medicine) and a generic medicine have been put on the market in the EEA by economically linked undertakings, a trade mark proprietor’s opposition to the further commercialisation of the generic medicine by a parallel importer after the repackaging of that generic medicine by the affixing to it of the trade mark of the branded medicine (reference medicine) in the country of importation may lead to an artificial partitioning of the markets of the Member States?

2. If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, must the trade mark proprietor’s opposition to that rebranding be assessed by reference to the BMS conditions?

3. Is it relevant to the answer to those questions that the generic medicine and the branded medicine (reference medicine) are identical or have the same therapeutic effect as referred to in Article 3(2) of the Koninklijk besluit van 19 April 2001 inzake parallelinvoer (Royal Decree of 19 April 2001 on parallel imports)?

Case: C-133/20

1. (a) Does successful recourse to Article 13(2) of the CTM Regulation require that the further commercialisation of the branded products concerned adversely affect or are liable to adversely affect one or more of the functions of the trade mark referred to in paragraph 3.2.4 above?

(b) If the answer to question 1(a) is in the affirmative, does that constitute a requirement that is additional to that of the existence of ‘legitimate reasons’?

(c) Does it suffice for successful recourse to Article 13(2) of the CTM Regulation that one or more of the functions of the trade mark referred to inquestion 1(a) above are adversely affected?

2. (a) In general, can it be said that, under Article 13(2) of the CTM Regulation, a trade mark proprietor may oppose the further commercialisation of goods under his trade mark if those goods have been repaired by persons other than the trade mark proprietor or persons to whom he has given consent to do so?

(b) If the answer to question 2(a) is in the negative, is the existence of ‘legitimate reasons’ within the meaning of Article 13(2) of the CTM Regulation, after repairs by a third party of goods put on the market by or with the consent of the trade mark proprietor, dependent on the nature of [Or. 9] the goods or the nature of the repair performed (as further explained in 3.2.5 above), or on other circumstances, such as special circumstances like those in the present case, set out above in 2.1 (ii) and (iii)?

3. (a) Is opposition by the trade mark proprietor as referred to in Article 13(2) of the CTM Regulation to the further commercialisation of goods repaired by third parties excluded if the trade mark is used in such a way that it does not give the impression that there is a commercial connection between the trade mark proprietor (or his licensees) and the party who further commercialises the goods, for example if, by the removal of the brand and/or by the additional labelling of the goods, it is clear after the repair that the repair has not been carried out by or with the consent of the trade mark proprietor or a licensee of the latter?

(b) Does that mean that significance should be attached to the answer to the question of whether the trade mark can be easily removed without compromising the technical soundness or practical usability of the goods?

4. When answering the foregoing questions, is it important whether it is a collective trade mark under the CTM Regulation that is at issue, and if so, in what respect?

Case: C-123/20

The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 11(1) and the first sentence of Article 11(2), as well as of Article 4(2)(b) and Article 6(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3):

1. Can unregistered Community designs in individual parts of a product arise as a result of disclosure of an overall image of a product in accordance with Article 11(1) and the first sentence of Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002?
   
   

2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

What legal criterion is to be applied for the purpose of assessing

individual character in accordance with Article 4(2)(b) and Article 6(1)of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 when determining the overall

impression of a component part which - as in the case of a part of a

vehicle’s bodywork, for example - is to be incorporated into a

complex product? In particular, can the criterion be whether the

appearance of the component part, as viewed by an informed user, is

not completely lost in the appearance of the complex product, but

rather displays a certain autonomy and consistency of form such that it is possible to identify an aesthetic overall impression which is

independent of the overall form?

Case: C-53/20

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

1. In the procedure for a non-minor amendment of the specification, can any actual or potential — provided that it is not entirely implausible - economic effect on a natural or legal person be sufficient to establish the existence of the legitimate interest, within the meaning of Article 53(2), first subparagraph, in conjunction with Article 49(3), first subparagraph, and (4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, that is necessary for the purposes of an opposition to the application or an appeal against the favourable decision on the application?
   
   
2. If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
   
   In the procedure for a non-minor amendment of the specification, does a legitimate interest within the meaning of Article 53(2), first subparagraph, in conjunction with Article 49(3), first subparagraph, and (4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 lie (only) with operators that produce products or foodstuffs comparable to those of operators for which a protected geographical indication is registered?
   
   
3. If Question 2 is answered in the negative:
   
   a) As regards the requirements governing a legitimate interest within the meaning of Article 49(3), first subparagraph, and (4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, must a distinction be drawn between the registration procedure under Articles 49 to 52 of Regulation 1151/2012, on the one hand, and the procedure for amending the specification under Article 53 of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, on the other, and,
   
   b) in the procedure for a non-minor amendment of the specification, does a legitimate interest within the meaning of Article 53(2), first subparagraph, in conjunction with Article 49(3), first subparagraph, and (4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 lie only with producers that produce or specifically intend to produce products in the geographical area which comply with the product specification, so that ‘non-local’ operators are automatically excluded from claiming a legitimate interest?

Case: C-13/20

1. Is Article 5(1) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs to be interpreted as permitting the lawful purchaser of a computer program to decompile all or part of that program where such decompilation is necessary to enable that person to correct errors affecting the operation of the program, including where the correction consists in disabling a function that is affecting the proper operation of the application of which the program forms a part?

2. In the event that that question is answered in the affirmative, must the conditions referred to in Article 6, or any other conditions, also be satisfied?