• Home
• About
• Content
• Contact

Enhanced protection

Referral C-298/23 (Inter IKEA Systems, 8 May 2023)

Judgment of 11 Apr 2019, C-690/17 (ÖKO-Test Verlag )

Article 9(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 5(2) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that they entitle the proprietor of an individual trade mark with a reputation, consisting of a quality label, to oppose the affixing, by a third party, of a sign identical with, or similar to, that mark to products that are neither identical with, nor similar to, the goods or services for which that mark is registered, provided that it is established that, by that affixing, the third party takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the reputation of the mark concerned or causes detriment to that distinctive character or reputation and provided that, in that case, the third party has not established the existence of a ‘due cause’, within the meaning of those provisions, in support of such affixing.  

Judgment of 20 Jul 2017, C-93/16 (The Irish Dairy Board)

Article 9(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that, in part of the European Union, an EU trade mark with a reputation and a sign peacefully coexist, does not allow the conclusion that in another part of the European Union, where that peaceful coexistence is absent, there is due cause legitimising the use of that sign.

Judgment of 3 Sep 2015, C-125/14 (Iron & Smith)

Article 4(3) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that, if the reputation of an earlier Community mark is established in a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, which may, in some circumstances, coincide with the territory of a single Member State, which does not have to be the State in which the application for the later national mark was filed, it must be held that that mark has a reputation in the European Union. The criteria laid down by the case-law concerning the genuine use of the Community trade mark are not relevant, as such, in order to establish the existence of a ‘reputation’ within the meaning of Article 4(3) thereof.

If the earlier Community trade mark has already acquired a reputation in a substantial part of the territory of the European Union, but not with the relevant public in the Member State in which registration of the later national mark concerned by the opposition has been applied for, the proprietor of the Community trade mark may benefit from the protection introduced by Article 4(3) of Directive 2008/95 where it is shown that a commercially significant part of that public is familiar with that mark, makes a connection between it and the later national mark, and that there is, taking account of all the relevant factors in the case, either actual and present injury to its mark, for the purposes of that provision or, failing that, a serious risk that such injury may occur in the future.

Judgment of 6 Feb 2014, C-65/12 (Leidseplein Beheer and de Vries)

Article 5(2) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark with a reputation may be obliged, pursuant to the concept of ‘due cause’ within the meaning of that provision, to tolerate the use by a third party of a sign similar to that mark in relation to a product which is identical to that for which that mark was registered, if it is demonstrated that that sign was being used before that mark was filed and that the use of that sign in relation to the identical product is in good faith. In order to determine whether that is so, the national court must take account, in particular, of:

– how that sign has been accepted by, and what its reputation is with, the relevant public;

– the degree of proximity between the goods and services for which that sign was originally used and the product for which the mark with a reputation was registered; and

– the economic and commercial significance of the use for that product of the sign which is similar to that mark.

Judgment of 18 Jul 2013, C-252/12 (Specsavers)

Article 9(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that where a Community trade mark is not registered in colour, but the proprietor has used it extensively in a particular colour or combination of colours with the result that it has become associated in the mind of a significant portion of the public with that colour or combination of colours, the colour or colours which a third party uses in order to represent a sign alleged to infringe that trade mark are relevant in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion or unfair advantage under that provision.

Judgment of 22 Sep 2011, C-323/09 (Interflora)

Article 5(2) of Directive 89/104 and Article 9(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark with a reputation is entitled to prevent a competitor from advertising on the basis of a keyword corresponding to that trade mark, which the competitor has, without the proprietor’s consent, selected in an internet referencing service, where the competitor thereby takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the trade mark (free-riding) or where the advertising is detrimental to that distinctive character (dilution) or to that repute (tarnishment). Advertising on the basis of such a keyword is detrimental to the distinctive character of a trade mark with a reputation (dilution) if, for example, it contributes to turning that trade mark into a generic term. By contrast, the proprietor of a trade mark with a reputation is not entitled to prevent, inter alia, advertisements displayed by competitors on the basis of keywords corresponding to that trade mark, which put forward – without offering a mere imitation of the goods or services of the proprietor of that trade mark, without causing dilution or tarnishment and without, moreover, adversely affecting the functions of the trade mark with a reputation – an alternative to the goods or services of the proprietor of that mark.

Judgment of 6 Oct 2009, C-301/07 (PAGO)

Article 9(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to benefit from the protection afforded in that provision, a Community trade mark must be known by a significant part of the public concerned by the products or services covered by that trade mark, in a substantial part of the territory of the European Community, and that, in view of the facts of the main proceedings, the territory of the Member State in question may be considered to constitute a substantial part of the territory of the Community.

Judgment of 18 Jun 2009, C-487/07 (L’Oréal / Bellure)

Article 5(2) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the taking of unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of a mark, within the meaning of that provision, does not require that there be a likelihood of confusion or a likelihood of detriment to the distinctive character or the repute of the mark or, more generally, to its proprietor. The advantage arising from the use by a third party of a sign similar to a mark with a reputation is an advantage taken unfairly by that third party of the distinctive character or the repute of that mark where that party seeks by that use to ride on the coat-tails of the mark with a reputation in order to benefit from the power of attraction, the reputation and the prestige of that mark and to exploit, without paying any financial compensation, the marketing effort expended by the proprietor of the mark in order to create and maintain the mark’s image.

Article 3a(1) of Directive 84/450, as amended by Directive 97/55, must be interpreted as meaning that an advertiser who states explicitly or implicitly in comparative advertising that the product marketed by him is an imitation of a product bearing a well-known trade mark presents ‘goods or services as imitations or replicas’ within the meaning of Article 3a(1)(h). The advantage gained by the advertiser as a result of such unlawful comparative advertising must be considered to be an advantage taken unfairly of the reputation of that mark within the meaning of Article 3a(1)(g).

Judgment of 27 Nov 2008, C-252/07 (Intel)

Article 4(4)(a) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that whether there is a link, within the meaning of Case C‑408/01 Adidas-Salomon and Adidas Benelux, between the earlier mark with a reputation and the later mark must be assessed globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case.

The fact that, for the average consumer, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, the later mark calls the earlier mark with a reputation to mind is tantamount to the existence of such a link, within the meaning of Adidas-Salomon and Adidas Benelux, between the conflicting marks.

The fact that: – the earlier mark has a huge reputation for certain specific types of goods or services, and – those goods or services and the goods or services for which the later mark is registered are dissimilar or dissimilar to a substantial degree, and – the earlier mark is unique in respect of any goods or services, does not necessarily imply that there is a link, within the meaning of Adidas-Salomon and Adidas Benelux, between the conflicting marks.

Article 4(4)(a) of Directive 89/104 must be interpreted as meaning that whether a use of the later mark takes or would take unfair advantage of, or is or would be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark must be assessed globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case.

The fact that: – the earlier mark has a huge reputation for certain specific types of goods or services, and – those goods or services and the goods or services for which the later mark is registered are dissimilar or dissimilar to a substantial degree, and – the earlier mark is unique in respect of any goods or services, and – for the average consumer, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, the later mark calls the earlier mark to mind, is not sufficient to establish that the use of the later mark takes or would take unfair advantage of, or is or would be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark, within the meaning of Article 4(4)(a) of Directive 89/104.

Article 4(4)(a) of Directive 89/104 must be interpreted as meaning that: – the use of the later mark may be detrimental to the distinctive character of the earlier mark with a reputation even if that mark is not unique; – a first use of the later mark may suffice to be detrimental to the distinctive character of the earlier mark; – proof that the use of the later mark is or would be detrimental to the distinctive character of the earlier mark requires evidence of a change in the economic behaviour of the average consumer of the goods or services for which the earlier mark was registered consequent on the use of the later mark, or a serious likelihood that such a change will occur in the future.

Judgment of 25 Jan 2007, C-48/05 (Adam Opel)

Where a trade mark is registered both for motor vehicles – in respect of which it is well known – and for toys, the affixing by a third party, without authorisation from the trade mark proprietor, of a sign identical to that trade mark on scale models of vehicles bearing that trade mark, in order faithfully to reproduce those vehicles, and the marketing of those scale models: – constitute, for the purposes of Article 5(1)(a) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, a use which the proprietor of the trade mark is entitled to prevent if that use affects or is liable to affect the functions of the trade mark as a trade mark registered for toys; – constitute, within the meaning of Article 5(2) of that directive, a use which the proprietor of the trade mark is entitled to prevent – where the protection defined in that provision has been introduced into national law – if, without due cause, use of that sign takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark as a trade mark registered for motor vehicles.

Judgment of 23 Oct 2003, C-408/01 (Adidas-Salomon)

A Member State, where it exercises the option provided by Article 5(2) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, is bound to grant the specific protection in question in cases of use by a third party of a later mark or sign which is identical with or similar to the registered mark with a reputation, both in relation to goods or services which are not similar and in relation to goods or services which are identical with or similar to those covered by that mark.

The protection conferred by Article 5(2) of Directive 89/104 is not conditional on a finding of a degree of similarity between the mark with a reputation and the sign such that there exists a likelihood of confusion between them on the part of the relevant section of the public. It is sufficient for the degree of similarity between the mark with a reputation and the sign to have the effect that the relevant section of the public establishes a link between the sign and the mark.

Judgment of 9 Jan 2003, C-292/00 (Davidoff)

Articles 4(4)(a) and 5(2) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks are to be interpreted as entitling the Member States to provide specific protection for registered trade marks with a reputation in cases where a later mark or sign, which is identical with or similar to the registered mark, is intended to be used oris used for goods or services identical with or similar to those covered by the registered mark.

Judgment of 14 Sep 1999, C-375/97 (GM (Chevy))

Article 5(2) of the First Council Directive (89/104/EEC) of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to enjoy protection extending to non-similar products or services, a registered trade mark must be known by a significant part of the public concerned by the products or services which it covers. In the Benelux territory, it is sufficient for the registered trade mark to be known by a significant part of the public concerned in a substantial part of that territory, which part may consist of a part of one of the countries composing that territory.

Judgment of 4 Mar 2020, C-155/18 (Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO)

Order of 1 Oct 2019, C-295/19 (Apple v Pear Technologies)

Judgment of 28 Feb 2019, C-505/17 (Groupe Léa Nature v EUIPO)

Order of 14 Feb 2019, C-510/18 (Prada)

Order of 6 Sep 2018, C-151/18 (El Corte Inglés)

Judgment of 28 Jun 2018, C-564/16 (EUIPO v Puma)

Judgment of 30 May 2018, C-85/16 (Tsujimoto v OHIM)

Judgment of 30 May 2018, C-85/16 (Tsujimoto v OHIM)

Judgment of 20 Sep 2017, C-673/15 (The Tea Board v OHIM)

Judgment of 26 Jul 2017, C-471/16 (Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen v EUIPO)

Judgment of 21 Jan 2016, C-50/15 (Hesse v OHIM )

Judgment of 10 Dec 2015, C-603/14 (El Corte Ingl)

Order of 17 Sep 2015, C-548/14 (Arnoldo Mondadori Editore)

Judgment of 20 Nov 2014, C-581/13 (Intra-Presse - GOLDEN BALLS)

Order of 12 Jun 2014, C-285/13 (Bimbo)

Judgment of 14 Nov 2013, C-383/12 (Wolf)

Order of 14 May 2013, C-294/12 (Beatle)

Judgment of 10 May 2012, C-100/11 (Helena Rubinstein)

Judgment of 24 Mar 2011, C-552/09 (Ferrero - TiMi KiNDERJOGHURT)

Order of 14 Mar 2011, C-370/10 (Ravensburger - educa)

Order of 27 Oct 2010, C-342/09 (Victor Guedes - GALLO)

Judgment of 2 Sep 2010, C-254/09 (Calvin Klein - CK CREACIONES KENNYA)

Judgment of 12 Mar 2009, C-320/07 (Antartica - Nasdaq)

Order of 12 Dec 2008, C-197/07 (Aktieselskabet - TDK)

Judgment of 11 Dec 2008, C-57/08 (Gateway)

Order of 7 Jun 2007, C-216/10 (AirPlus - A+)