IP case law Court of Justice

Referral C-129/17 (Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha and Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe, 13 Mar 2017)



1. (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 trade-mark proprietor?






Case details on the CJEU website (external link)