References to the Court of Justice of the European Union: 2012

Question 1

1.1 C-617/12

Accepted Answer

Astrazeneca AB

The referring court asks the following questions:

Is a Swiss marketing authorisation not granted pursuant to the administrative authorisation procedure laid down in Directive _2001l83/EC, _but automatically recognised by Liechtenstein, capable of constituting the 'first authorisation to place the product on the market' for the purposes of Article 13(1) of Regulation _469/2009/EC?
Does it make a difference to the answer to the first question if:

(a) the set of clinical data upon which the Swiss authority granted the marketing authorisation was considered by the European Medicines Agency as not satisfying the conditions for the grant of a marketing authorisation pursuant to Regulation _726/2004/EC; _and/or

(b) the Swiss marketing authorisation was suspended after grant and was only reinstated following the submission of additional data?
If Article 13( 1) of Regulation _469/2009 _refers solely to marketing authorisations granted pursuant to the administrative authorisation procedure laid down in Directive _2001/83/EC, _does the fact that a medicinal product was first placed on the market within the EEA pursuant to a Swiss marketing authorisation automatically recognised in Liechtenstein which was not granted pursuant to Directive _2001l83/EC _render that product ineligible for the grant of a supplementary protection certificate pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation _469/2009?

Question 2

1.2 C-583/12

Accepted Answer

Sintax Trading

Request to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the following questions:

May the 'proceedings … to determine whether an intellectual property right has been infringed' referred to in Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1383/2003 also be conducted within the customs department or must 'the authority competent to decide on the case' dealt with in Chapter III of the regulation be separate from the customs?
Recital 2 in the preamble to Regulation No 1383/2003 mentions as one of the objectives of the regulation the protection of consumers, and according to recital 3 in the preamble a procedure should be set up to enable the customs authorities to enforce as effectively as possible the prohibition of the introduction into the Community customs territory of goods infringing an intellectual property right, without impeding the freedom of legitimate trade in accordance with recital 2 in the preamble to the regulation and recital 1 in the preamble to implementing regulation No 1891/2004.

Is it compatible with those objectives if the measures laid down in Article 17 of Regulation No 1383/2003 can be applied only if the right-holder initiates the procedure mentioned in Article 13(1) of the regulation for determination of an infringement of an intellectual property right, or must it also be possible, for the effective pursuit of those objectives, for the customs authorities to initiate the corresponding procedure?

Question 3

1.3 C-493/12

Accepted Answer

Eli Lilly & Co

The referring court asks:

What are the criteria for deciding whether the product is protected by a basic patent in force in Article 3(a) of Regulation 469/2009/EC
Are the criteria different where the product is not a combination product, and if so, what are the criteria?
In the case of a claim to an antibody or a class of antibodies, is it sufficient that the antibody or antibodies are defined in terms of their binding characteristics to a target protein, or is it necessary to provide a structural definition for the antibody or antibodies, and if so, how much?

Question 4

1.4 C-484/12

Accepted Answer

Georgetown University

The referring Court asks five questions:

Does Article 3(c) of the Regulation preclude, in a situation where there is a basic patent in force which protects several products, the holder of the basic patent from being granted a certificate for each of the protected products?
Secondly, if so, how should Article 3(C) be interpreted in the situation where there is one basic patent in force which protects several products, and where, at the date of the application for a certificate in respect of one of the products (A) protected by the basic patent, no certificates had in fact yet been granted in respect of other products (B, C) protected by the same basic patent, but where certificates were nevertheless granted in respect of those applications in respect of the products (B, C) before a decision was made with regard to the application for a certificate in respect of the first-mentioned product (A)?
Thirdly, it asks if it is significant for the answer to the second question whether the application in respect of one of the products (A) protected by the basic patent was submitted on the same date as the applications in respect of other products (B, C) protected by the same basic patent?
Fourthly, if the answer to question one is in the affirmative, may a certificate be granted for a product protected by a basic patent which is in force if a certificate had already been granted earlier for another product protected by the same basic patent, but where the applicant surrenders the latter certificate with a view to obtaining a new certificate on the basis of the same basic patent?
Finally, it asks, if the issue of whether the surrender has retroactive effect is relevant for the purpose of answering question four, is the question of whether surrender has retroactive effect governed by Article 14(b) of the Regulation or by national law? If it is governed by Article 14(b), should that provision be interpreted to mean that surrender does have retroactive effect?

Question 5

1.5 C-479/12

Accepted Answer

Gautzsch Grobhandel

The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 7(1), first sentence, Article 11(2), Article 19(2) and Article 89(1)(a) and (d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1):

Is Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 to be interpreted as meaning that, in the normal course of business, a design could reasonably have become known to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the European Union, in the case where images of the design were distributed to traders?
Is the first sentence of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 to be interpreted as meaning that a design could not reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the European Union, even though it was disclosed to third parties without any explicit or implicit conditions of confidentiality, in the case where

(a) it is made available to only one undertaking in the specialised circles, or

(b) it is exhibited in a showroom of an undertaking in China which lies outside the scope of normal market analysis?
(a) Is Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 to be interpreted as meaning that the holder of an unregistered Community design bears the burden of proving that the contested use results from copying the protected design?

(b) If Question 3(a) is answered in the affirmative: Is the burden of proof reversed or is the burden of proof incumbent on the holder of the unregistered Community design eased if there are material similarities between the design and the contested use?
(a) Is the right to obtain an injunction prohibiting further infringement of an unregistered Community design, provided for in Article 19(2) and Article 89(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, subject to limitation in time?

(b) If Question 4(a) is answered in the affirmative: Is the limitation in time governed by European Union law and, if so, by which provision?
(a) Is the right to obtain an injunction prohibiting further infringement of an unregistered Community design, provided for in Article 19(2) and Article 89(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, subject to forfeiture?

(b) If Question 5(a) is answered in the affirmative: Is the forfeiture governed by European Union law and, if so, by which provision?
Is Article 89(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 to be interpreted as meaning that claims for destruction, disclosure of information and damages by reason of infringement of an unregistered Community design which are pursued in relation to the entirety of the European Union are subject to the law of the Member States in which the acts of infringement were committed?

Question 6

1.6 C-477/12

Accepted Answer

Hogan Lovells International LLP v Bayer Cropscience KK

For the purpose of the application of Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96, must account be taken exclusively of a marketing authorisation under Article 4 of Directive 91/414/EEC or Article 8(1) thereof, or can a certificate also be granted on the basis of a marketing authorisation which has been granted under Article 8(4) thereof?

Question 7

1.7 C-466/12

Accepted Answer

Svensson E.A.

The Hovrätten requests a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union on the following questions of interpretation.

If anyone other than the holder of copyright in a certain work supplies a clickable link to the work on his website, does that constitute communication to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) 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?
Is the assessment under question 1 affected if the work to which the link refers is on a website on the Internet which can be accessed by anyone without restrictions or if access is restricted in some way?
When making the assessment under question 1, should any distinction be drawn between a case where the work, after the user has clicked on the link, is shown on another website and one where the work, after the user has clicked on the link, is shown in such a way as to give the impression that it is appearing on the same website?
Is it possible for a Member State to give wider protection to authors’ exclusive right by enabling ‘communication to the public’ to cover a greater range of acts than provided for in Article 3(1) 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?

Question 8

1.8 C-463/12

Accepted Answer

Copydan Copydan Båndkopi

Is it compatible with Directive 2001/29/EC for Member States to have legislation which guarantees compensation for the rightholders for reproductions made using the following sources:

(1) files where the use in question is approved by the rightholders and paid for by the customer (licensed content from online shops, for example);

(2) files where the use in question is approved by the rightholders and not paid for by the customer (licensed content, for example, in connection with a marketing action);

(3) the user’s own DVD, CD, MP3 player, computer, etc., where effective technological measures are not applied;

(4) the user’s own DVD, CD, MP3 player, computer, etc., where effective technological measures are applied;

(5) a third party’s DVD, CD, MP3 player, computer, etc.;

(6) unlawfully copied works from the Internet or other sources;

(7) files copied lawfully in some other way from, for example, the Internet (from lawful sources where no licence has been granted)?
How must effective technological measures be taken into account, (ref.Article 6 of the Directive) in the Member States’ legislation on compensation for rightholders (ref. Article 5(2)(b) of the Directive)?
In the calculation of compensation for private copying (ref. Article 5(2)(b) of the Directive), what constitutes ‘situations where the prejudice to the rightholder would be minimal’, as referred to in recital 35 in the preamble to the Directive, with the result that it will not be compatible with the Directive for the Member States to have legislation which provides for compensation for rightholders for such copying for private use (ref. in this connection the survey referred to in part 2 above)?
(a) If it is assumed that the primary or most important function of memory cards in mobile phones is not private copying, is it compatible with the Directive for the Member States to have legislation which guarantees compensation for rightholders for copying on mobile phone memory cards?

(b) If it is assumed that private copying is one of the several primary or essential functions of memory cards in mobile phones, is it compatible with the Directive for the Member States to have legislation which guarantees compensation for rightholders for copying on mobile phone memory cards?
Is it compatible with the concept of ‘fair balance’ in recital 31 in the preamble to the Directive and with the uniform interpretation of the concept of ‘fair compensation’ (ref. Article 5(2)(b) of the Directive), which must be based on ‘prejudice’, for the Member States to have legislation under which remuneration is collected for memory cards, whereas no remuneration is collected for internal memory such as MP3 players or iPods, which are designed and primarily used for private copying?
(a) Does the Directive preclude the Member States from having legislation which provides for the collection of remuneration for private copying from a producer and/or importer who sells memory cards to business concerns which sell the memory cards on to both private and business customers, without the producer’s and/or importer’s having knowledge of whether the memory cards have been sold to private or business customers?

(b) Is the answer to question 6(a) affected if provisions are laid down in a Member State’s legislation which ensure that producers, importers and/or distributors do not have to pay remuneration for memory cards used for professional purposes, that producers, importers and/or distributors, where the remuneration has nevertheless been paid, can have the remuneration for memory cards refunded in so far as they are used for professional purposes, and that producers, importers and/or distributors can sell memory cards to other undertakings registered with the organisation which administers the remuneration scheme, without payment of remuneration?

(c) Is the answer to questions 6(a) and 6(b) affected

(1) if provisions are laid down in a Member State’s legislation ensuring that producers, importers and/or distributors do not have to pay remuneration for memory cards used for professional purposes, but the concept of 'professional purposes' is interpreted as conferring a right of deduction applying only to undertakings approved by Copydan, whereas remuneration must be paid for memory cards used professionally by other business customers which are not approved by Copydan;

(2) if provisions are laid down in a Member State’s legislation ensuring that producers, importers and/or distributors, where the remuneration has in fact been paid (theoretically), can have remuneration for memory cards refunded where they are used for professional purposes, but (a) it is in practice only the purchaser of the memory card who can have the remuneration refunded, and (b) the purchaser of memory cards must submit an application for refund of remuneration to Copydan;

(3) if provisions are laid down in a Member State’s legislation ensuring that producers, importers and/or distributors may sell memory cards to other undertakings registered with the organisation which administers the remuneration scheme, without payment of remuneration, but (a) Copydan is the organisation which administers the remuneration scheme and (b) the registered undertakings have no knowledge of whether the memory cards have been sold to private or business customers?

Question 9

1.9 C-443/12

Accepted Answer

Actavia Group et Activas

The referring court asks:-

What are the criteria for deciding whether "the product is protected by a basic patent in force" in Article 3(a) of Regulation 469/2009/EC ("the Regulation")?
In a situation in which multiple products are protected by a basic patent in force, does the Regulation, and in particular Article 3(c), preclude the proprietor of the patent being issued a certificate for each of the products protected?

Question 10

1.10 C-435/12

Accepted Answer

ACI Adam E.A.

The referring court asks:-

Should Article 5(2)(b) be interpreted as meaning that the limitation on copyright applies regardless of whether the works became available to the natural person concerned lawfully or does the limitation only apply when the work has become available without an infringement of copyright?
If the answer is that it applies only when work becomes available without infringement:

a) Can the application of the three stage test form the basis of the expansion of the scope of Article 5(2) or can its application only lead to the reduction of the scope?

b) Is a national law that provides for payment of fair compensation for reproductions as above contrary to Article 5?
Is the Enforcement Directive (Directive 2004/48/EC) applicable to these proceedings – where a Member State has imposed an obligation to pay fair compensation under 5(2)(b)?

Question 11

1.11 C-409/12

Accepted Answer

Backaldrin Osterreich The Kornspitz Company

Reference is made to the Court of Justice of the European Union, in accordance with Article 267 TFEU, for a preliminary ruling on the following questions:

Has a trade mark become ‘the common name ... for a product or service’ within the meaning of Article 12(2)(a) of Directive 2008/95/EC, where

(a) although traders know that the mark constitutes an indication of origin they do not generally disclose this to end consumers, and

(b) (inter alia) on those grounds, end consumers no longer understand the trade mark as an indication of origin but as the common name for goods or services, inrespect of which the trade mark is registered?
Can the conduct of a proprietor be regarded as ‘inactivity’ for the purposes of Article 12(2)(a) of Directive 2008/95/EC simply if the proprietor of the trade mark remains inactive notwithstanding the fact that traders do not inform customers that the name is a registered trade mark?
If, as a consequence of acts or inactivity of the proprietor, a trade mark has become a common name for end consumers, but not in the trade, is that trade mark liable to be revoked if, and only if, end consumers have to use this name because there are no equivalent alternatives?

Question 12

1.12 C-387/12

Accepted Answer

Hi Hotel HCF

The following question is referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 5(3) 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 (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1):

Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 to be interpreted as meaning that the harmful event occurred in one Member State (Member State A) in the case where the tort or delict which forms the subject-matter of the proceedings or from which claims are derived was committed in another Member State (Member State B) and consists in participation in the tort or delict (principal act) committed in the first Member State (Member State A)?

Question 13

1.13 C-360/12

Accepted Answer

Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH v First Note Perfumes N.V.

This case raises the following questions which have been sent to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

Is Article 93(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 to be interpreted as meaning that an act of infringement is committed in one Member State (Member State A), within the meaning of Article 93(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, in the case where, as a result of an act in another Member State (Member State B), there is participation in the infringement in the first-named Member State (Member State A)?
Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 to be interpreted as meaning that the harmful event occurred in one Member State (Member State A) if the tortuous act which is the subject of the action or from which claims are derived was committed in another Member State (Member State B) and consists in participation in the tortuous act (principal act) which took place in the first-named Member State (Member State A)?

Question 14

1.14 C-355/12

Accepted Answer

Nintendo e.a.

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling:

Must Article 6 of Directive 2001/29/EC be interpreted, including in the light of recital 48 in the preamble thereto, as meaning that the protection of technological protection measures attaching to copyright-protected works or other subject matter may also extend to a system, produced and marketed by the same undertaking, in which a device is installed in the hardware which is capable of recognising on a separate housing mechanism containing the protected works (video-games produced by the same undertaking as well as by third parties, proprietors of the protected works, ) a recognition code, in the absence of which the works in question cannot be visualised or used in conjunction with that system, the equipment in question thus incorporating a system which is not interoperable with complementary equipment or products other than those of the undertaking which produces the system itself?
Should it be necessary to consider whether or not the use of a product or component whose purpose is to circumvent a technological protection measure predominates over other commercially important purposes or uses, may Article 6 of Directive 2001/29/EC be interpreted, including in the light of recital 48 in the preamble thereto, as meaning that the national court must adopt criteria in assessing that question which give prominence to the particular intended use attributed by the right holder to the product in which the protected content is inserted or, in the alternative or in addition, criteria of a quantative nature relating to the extent of the uses under comparison, or criteria of a qualitative nature, that is, relating to the nature and importance of the uses themselves?'

Question 15

1.15 C-351/12

Accepted Answer

OSA (Referring Court: Krajský soud v Plzni)

The Court asks:-

Must 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 be interpreted as meaning that an exception disallowing remuneration to authors for the communication of their work by television or radio transmission by means of television or radio receivers to patients in rooms in a spa establishment which is a business is contrary to Articles 3 and 5 (Article 5(2)(e), (3)(b) and (5))?
Is the content of those provisions of the directive concerning the above use of a work unconditional enough and sufficiently precise for copyright collecting societies to be able to rely on them before the national courts in a dispute between individuals, if the State has not transposed the directive correctly in national law?
Must Article 56 et seq. and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (or as the case may be Article 16 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market) be interpreted as precluding the application of rules of national law which reserve the exercise of collective management of copyright in the territory of the State to only a single (monopoly) copyright collecting society and thereby do not allow recipients of services a free choice of a collecting society from another State of the European Union?

Question 16

1.16 C-314/12

Accepted Answer

UPC Telekabel Wein

The Court asks:

Is Article 8(3) of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that a person who makes protected subject matter available on the internet without the right holder’s consent is using the services of the access providers of persons seeking access to that protected subject matter?
If the answer to the first question is in the negative, are reproduction for private use and transient and incident reproduction permissible only if the original reproduction was lawfully reproduced, distributed or made available to the public?
If the answer to the first and second question is in the affirmative, and an injunction is therefore to be issued against the user’s access provider in accordance with Article 8(3) of the Directive, is this compatible with Union law, in particular with the necessary balance between the parties’ fundamental rights?
If the answer to the third question is in the negative, is it compatible with Union law to require an access provider to take specific measures to make it more difficult for its customers to access a website containing material made available unlawfully if those measures require not inconsiderable costs and can easily be circumvented without any special technical knowledge?

Question 17

1.17 C-299/12

Accepted Answer

Green - Swan Pharmaceuticals CR

The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling:

Is the following health claim: 'The preparation also contains calcium and Vitamin D3, which help to reduce a risk factor in the development of osteoporosis and fractures', a reduction of disease risk claim within the meaning of Article 2(2)(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 116/2010 of 9 February 2010, even though it is not expressly implied in this claim that the consumption of that preparation would significantly reduce a risk factor in the development of disease mentioned?
Does the concept of a trade mark or brand name within the meaning of Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 116/2010 of 9 February 2010, also include a commercial communication on the packaging of the product?
Should the transitional provision in Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 116/2010 of 9 February 2010, be interpreted to refer to (any) foods which existed prior to 1 January 2005, or to refer to foods to which a trade mark or brand name was affixed and which existed in that form before that date?

Question 18

1.18 C-252/12

Accepted Answer

Specsavers International Healthcare E.A.

The Court of Appeal requests that the following questions be answered in respect of arts 9(l)(b), 9(l)(c), 15 and 51 CTM Regulation:

Where a trader has separate registrations of Community trade marks for

(i) a graphic device mark;

(ii) a word mark;

and uses the two together, is such use capable of amounting to use of the graphic device mark for the purposes of Articles 15 and 51 of Regulation 207/2009? If yes, how is the question of use of the graphic mark to be assessed?
Does it make a difference if:

(i) the word mark is superimposed over the graphic device?

(ii) the trader also has the combined mark comprising graphic device and word mark registered as a Community trade mark?
Does the answer to A or B depend upon whether the graphic device and the words are perceived by the average consumer as (i) being separate signs; or (ii) each having an independent distinctive role? If so, how?
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 such that it has become associated in the mind of a significant portion of the public (in a part but not the whole of the Community) with that colour or combination of colours, is the colour or colours with which the defendant uses the sign complained of relevant in the global assessment of (i) likelihood of confusion under Article 9(1 )(b) or (ii) unfair advantage under Article 9(1)(c) of Regulation 207/2009? If so, how?
If so, is it relevant as part of the global assessment that the defendant itself is associated in the mind of a significant portion of the public with the colour or particular combination of colours which it is using for the sign complained of?

Question 19

1.19 C-233/12

Accepted Answer

Gardella

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling:

Must Articles 20, 45, 48 and 145 - 147 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 15 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFEU) be interpreted as precluding national legislation or national administrative practice which do not permit a worker who is a national of a Member State to transfer to the pension scheme of an international body situated in the territory of another Member State of the European Union, where he works and is insured, the pension contributions credited to the social security scheme of his own State, where he was previously insured?
As a consequence of the circumstances set out in Question 1, should it be possible to exercise the right to transfer contributions even in the absence of any specific agreement between the Member State of which the worker is a national or the worker's pension institution, on the one hand, and the international body on the other?

Question 20

1.20 C-210/12

Accepted Answer

Sumitomo Chemical

The following questions concerning the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling:

Is Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products to be interpreted as not precluding the grant of a supplementary protection certificate for a plant protection product if a valid marketing authorisation was granted in accordance with Article 8(4) of Directive 91/414/EEC?
If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

Is it necessary under Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 for the marketing authorisation to be still in force at the time of application for the Certificate?
If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:

Is Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 to be interpreted as meaning that an application can be lodged even before the period mentioned in that provision starts to run?

Question 21

1.21 C-202/12

Accepted Answer

Innoweb

The Gerechtshof refers the following questions to the Court of Justice:

Is Article 7(1) of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the whole or a qualitatively or quantitatively substantial part of the contents of a databaseoffered on a website (on line) is re-utilised (made available) by a third party if that third party _makes it possible _for the public to search the whole contents of the database or a substantial part thereof in real time with the aid of a dedicated meta search engine provided by that third party, by means of a query entered by a user in ‘translated’ form into the search engine of the website on which the database is offered?
If not, is the situation different if, after receiving the results of the query, the third party sends to or displays for each user a very small part of the contents of the database in the format of his own website?
Is it relevant to the answers to Questions 1 and 2 that the third party undertakes those activities continuously and, with the aid of its search engine, carries out daily a total of 100 000 queries received from users in ‘translated’ form and makes available the results thereof to various users in a manner such as that described above?
Is Article 7(5) of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the repeated and systematic re-utilisation of insubstantial parts of the contents of the database which conflicts with normal exploitation or unreasonably prejudices the legitimate interests of the maker of the database is not permissible, or is it sufficient for there to be repeated or systematic reutilisation?
If repeated and systematic re-utilisation is a requirement,

(a) what does 'systematic' mean?

(b) Is re-utilisation systematic when an automated system is used?

(c) Is it relevant that a dedicated meta search engine is used in the manner

described above?
Is Article 7(5) of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition for which it provides does not apply if a third party repeatedly makes available to individual users of a meta search engine belonging to that third party only insubstantial parts of the contents of the database in response to each query?
If so, does that also apply if the cumulative effect of the repeated reutilisation of those insubstantial parts is that a substantial part of the contents of the database is made available to the individual users together?
Is Article 7(5) of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that, if conduct which has not been approved and which is such that, as a result of the cumulative effect of re-utilisation, the whole or a substantial part of the contents of a protected database is made available to the public, the requirements of that provision are satisfied, or must it also be claimed and proved that those acts conflict with the normal exploitation of the database or unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the maker of the database?
Is it assumed that the investment of the maker of the database is seriously prejudiced in the event of the aforementioned conduct?

Question 22

1.22 C-170/12

Accepted Answer

Pinckney

This case raises the following questions which have been sent to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

Is Article 5(3) 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 to be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an alleged infringement of copyright committed by means of content placed online on a website,

– the person who considers that his rights have been infringed has the option of bringing an action to establish liability before the courts of each Member State in the territory of which content placed online is or has been accessible, in order to obtain compensation solely in respect of the damage suffered on the territory of the Member State before which the action is brought,

or

– does that content also have to be, or to have been, directed at the public located in the territory of that Member State, or must some other clear connecting factor be present?
Is the answer to Question 1 the same if the alleged infringement of copyright results, not from the placing of dematerialised content online, but, as in the present case, from the online sale of a material carrier medium which reproduces that content?

Question 23

1.23 C-65/12

Accepted Answer

Leidseplein Beheer B.V. and Hendrikus Jacobus Marinus De Vries v Red Bull GmbH and Red Bull Nederland B.V.

This case raises the following question which has been sent to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

Is Article 5(2) of Directive 89/104/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that there can be due cause within the meaning of that provision also where the sign that is identical or similar to the trade mark with a reputation was already being used in good faith by the third party/parties concerned before that trade mark was filed?

Question 24

1.24 C-12/12

Accepted Answer

Colloseum Holding AG v Levi Strauss & Co.

This case raises the following questions which have been sent to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

Is Article 15(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 to be interpreted as meaning that:

a trade mark which is part of a composite mark and has become distinctive only as a result of the use of the composite mark can be used in such a way as to preserve the rights attached to it if the composite mark alone is used?
a trade mark is being used in such a way as to preserve the rights attached to it if it is used only together with another mark, the public sees independent signs in the two marks and, in addition, both marks are registered together as a trade mark?

Case and subject	Parties	Legislation	Pre-hearing
C-617/12 (Patents) A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns a dispute over the duration of a Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) and seeks clarity in the interpretation of European Parliament and Council Regulation 469/2009/EC Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Astrazeneca AB	European Parliament and Council Regulation 469/2009/ECArticle 13(1) of Regulation 469/2009/ECArticle 2 of Regulation 469/2009Regulation 746/2004/ECDirective 2001/93/ECDirective 2001/83/EC	Comments by 28 February 2013 Deadline for observations by 25 April 2013
C-608/12 P (Trade marks) Appeal against the judgment in Case T-333/11 Nicolas Wessang v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)	Greinwald GmbH v OHIM	Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the Community trade mark regulation (CTMR)	Comments by 15 March 2013 Deadline for observations by 12 April 2013
C-597/12 P (Trade marks) An appeal to the Court of Justice against the judgment in case T-366/11. The case concerns an application for a Community Trade Mark for the mark Zebexir which was opposed on the grounds of phonetic and visual similarity.	Isdin, S.A. v OHIM	Article 76(1) CTMRRegulation 40/94Article 8(l)(b) CTMR	Comments by 5 April 2013 Deadline for observations by 3 May 2013
C-584/12 P (Trade marks) Appeal to the Court of Justice against the judgment of the General Court in case T-357/09	El Corte Inglés S.A.	Article 8(1) of Regulation No 40/94Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009	Comments by 15 March 2013 Deadline for observations by 12 April 2013
C-583/12This preliminary reference from the from the Estonian Supreme Court concerns an alleged infringement of intellectual property rights and which body is competent to determine this when goods are detained on this basis on arrival in the EU. It arises from a challenge brought by Sintax Trading against a decision of the Estonian Tax and Customs Office to detain their goods imported from the Ukraine on the basis that they infringed a similar bottle design already registered in Estonia. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Sintax Trading	Council Regulation 1383/2003 and Commission Regulation 1891/2004	Comments by 19 February 2013 Deadline for observations by 16 April 2013
C-582/12 P (Trade marks) Appeal to the Court of Justice against the judgment of the General Court in case T-373/09	El Corte Inglés S.A.	Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94	Comments by 15 March 2013 Deadline for observations by 12 April 2013
C-578/12 P Appeal brought on 6 December 2012 by El Corte Inglés, SA against the judgment of the General Court delivered on 27 September 2012 in Case T-39/10: El Corte Inglés, S.A. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) concerning likelihood of confusion between trade marks.	El Corte Inglés, S.A. v OHIM	Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark	Comments by 1 March 2013 Deadline for UK observations 26 March 2013
C-558/12 P (Trade marks) An appeal to the Court of Justice against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) in case T-278/10.	OHIM v Wesergold Getrankeindustrie GmbH	Article 8(1) (b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 76(1) in conjunction with Article 64(1) of the Regulation	Comments by 14 February 2013 Deadline for observations by 12 March 2013
C-530/12 P (Trade marks) An appeal brought by OHIM against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) in case T-404/10 National Lottery Commission v OHIM on the grounds of the violation of Article 76(1) CTMR, the breach of OHIM’s right to be heard, and the manifest inconsistency and distortion of facts affecting the Judgment under Appeal.	OHIM v National Lottery Commission	Article 76(1) CTMR, Article 53(2) CTMR and Rule 37 CTMIR	Comments by 8 February 2013 Deadline for observations by 8 March 2013
C-524/12 P(Trade marks) This is an appeal against the judgment in case T220/11 Team Bank v OHIM where the General Court found that there would be a likelihood of confusion between a figurative sign containing the word element ‘f@ir Credit’ and an earlier international figurative mark containing the word element ‘FERCREDIT’	Teambank AG Nurnberg	Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009	Comments by 25 January 2013 Deadline for observations by 22 February 2013
C-493/12 (Patents) Request for a preliminary ruling in a case concerning a Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Eli Lilly & Co	Article 3(a) of Regulation 469/2009/EC	Comments by 17 December 2012 Deadline for observations by 14 February 2013
C-484/12 A request for a preliminary ruling concerning the supplementary protection certificate (SPC) for medicinal products and surrender of such Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Georgetown University v Octrooicentrum Nederland	Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products	Comments by 10 January 2013 Deadline for observations by 23 February 2013
C-479/12 (Designs) Request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community designs and the circumstances in which an unregistered community design can be protected Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Gautzsch Grobhandel	Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community designs. Articles 11(2), 19(2) and 89(1)(d) of the Regulation. Regulation 564/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations, Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights and Regulation 207/2009 on the community trade mark.	Comments by 14 December 2012 Deadline for observations by 13 February 2013
C-477/12 The satisfaction of the requirement for a marketing authorisation in article 3(1)(b) of Regulation 1610/96 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Hogan Lovells International LLP v Bayer Cropscience KK.	Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation 1610/96 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for plant protection products.	This case has been stayed pending the judgment in case C-210/12 (Sumitomo Chemical)
C-466/12 (Copyright) Request for a preliminary ruling from a Swedish court regarding the infringement of exclusive rights to make copyright protected work publicly available by a third party subscription search engine Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Svensson E.A.	Article 3(1) of Directive 29/2001/EC	Comments by 3 December 2012 Deadline for observations by 31 January 2013
C-463/12 Concerning the use, function, sale and distribution of memory cards in mobile phones and the compatibility, with Article 5 of the Directive 2001/29/EC, of national legislation which guarantees compensation for the right holders of reproductions made using a number of different sources and held on those cards. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Copydan Båndkopi v Nokia Danmark A/S	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.	Comments by14 December 2012 Deadline for observations by 13 February 2013
C-443/12 (Patents) Request for a preliminary ruling asking whether, in a situation in which multiple products are protected by a basic patent in force, the Regulation precludes the proprietor of the patent from being issued with a certificate for each of the products protected. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Actavis Group et Activas	Article 3(a) of Council Regulation 469/2009	Comments by 16 November 2012 Deadline for observations by 16 January 2013
C-435/12 (Copyright) A request for a preliminary ruling in a case concerning the compatibility with national law and the Copyright Directive if the three stage test does not permit copying from illegal sources Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Aci Adam E.A.	Article 5(2)(b) and 5(5) of Directive 2001/29/EC	Comments by 09 November 2012 Deadline for observations by 09 January 2013
C-432/12 P (Trade marks) An appeal in relation to the General Court’s decision in Case T-334/10 based on the issue of genuine use and the misapplication of the general principles for assessing the likelihood of trade mark confusion	Leifheit AG v OHIM	Article 63(1) and Article 64(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark and Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark	Comments by 30 November 2012 Deadline for observations by 27 December 2012
C-422/12 P (Trade marks) An appeal to the Court of Justice against the judgment of the General Court in case T-135/11 in case concerning the word mark “CLORALEX”	Industrias Alen SA DE CV v The Clorox Company and OHIM	Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 40/94 on the community trade mark	Comments by 21 December 2012 Deadline for observations by 18 January 2013
C-410/12 P(Trade Marks)Regarding an appeal to the Court of Justice against the judgment in case T-470/09, which concerns the registration of the word sign ‘Medi’ as a Community trade mark.	Medi GmbH & Co. Kg v OHIM	Article 7(1)(b) of the Community trade mark	Comments by 09 November 2012 Deadline for observations by 07 December 2012
C-409/12 Request for a preliminary ruling from an Austrian Court to determine whether a trade mark shall be liable to revocation if after the date on which it was registered it has become the common name in the trade for a product or service. Question referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Backaldrin Osterreich The Kornspitz Company	Article 12(2)(a) of Directive 2008/95/EC	Comments by 22 October 2012 Deadline for observations by 20 December 2012
C-393/12 P (Trade marks) An appeal against the judgment in case T-534/10 as the General Court dismissed the application for registration of the trade mark ‘Hellim’	Organismo Kypriakis Galaktokomikis v OHIM	Article 8(1) of Regulation 207/2009 on the Community Trade mark and Article 66 of that Regulation	Comments by 23 November 2012 Deadline for observations by 20 December 2012
C-392/12 P (Trade marks) This case concerns an appeal against the judgment in case T-514/10.	Fruit of the Loom Inc v OHIM	Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the community trade mark	Comments by 30 November 2012 Deadline for observations by 27 December 2012
C-387/12 (Copyright) Request for a preliminary ruling in a case concerning copyright infringement of photographs. The referring court asks whether a court has jurisdiction to adjudicate both on copyright infringement in its territory and also on any contributing act which took place in another member state carried out by a party which assisted in the tort or delict in issue. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Hi Hotel HCF	Article 5(3) of Regulation 44/2001	Comments by 4 October 2012 Deadline for observations by 5 December 2012
C-383/12 P (Trade marks) An appeal in relation to the General Court’s judgment in T-570/10. This is regarding opposition proceedings between Société Elmar Wolf and Environmental Manufacturing LLP (Case R 425/2010-2) since the intervener had not shown that the earlier trade marks have been put to genuine use	Environmental Manufacturing LLP v OHIM	Article 42(2) and (3) and Article 8(5) of Regulation 207/2009 on the Community trade mark	Comments by 14 November 2012 Deadline for observations by 07 December 2012
C-379/12 P An appeal against the judgment of the General Court in case T-557/10 on the grounds that the General Court failed to recognise graphic, phonetic and conceptual similarity between ‘H Silvian Heach’ and ‘H.Eich’	H.Eich v OHIM	Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94, in particular Article 8(1)(b)’	Comments by 19 October 2012 Deadline for observations by 16 December 2012
C-360/12 A referral from Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) concerning jurisdictional issues related to trad emark infringement, unlawful advertising & unfair imitation. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH v First Note Perfumes N.V.	Interpretation of Article 93(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No40/94 and the interpretation of Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of December 2000.	Comments by 27 September 2012 Deadline for observations by 21 November 2012
C-357/12 P(Trade marks) An appeal to the Court of Justice against the judgment in case T-580/10 where the General Court refused the registration by the appellant of the mark ‘Kindertraum’ for goods in Classes 16 and 28	Harald Wohlfahrt v OHIM	Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009, Article 75(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009	Comments by 10 October 2012 Deadline for observations by 1 November 2012
C-355/12 (Copyright) Request for a preliminary ruling regarding specifically designed devices created to circumvent protection systems and permit the use of illegal copies of video games. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Nintendo e.a.	Article 6 of Directive 2001/29/EC (protection against the circumvention of any effective technological measures)	Comments by 19 September 2012 Deadline for observations by 15 November 2012
C-354/12 P (Trade marks) An appeal to the Court of Justice against the judgment in case T-110/11.	ASA SP Z O.O v General Court	Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 and Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union	Comments by 12 October 2012 Deadline for observations by 8 November 2012
C-351/12 A Czech reference for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of legislation on copyright exceptions and collecting societies. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	OSA (Referring Court: Krajský soud v Plzni)	Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 2001/29/EC concerning the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.	Comments by 17 September 2012 Deadline for observations by 15 November 2012
C-346/12 P an appeal against the judgment of the General Court in case T-546/10 Nordmilch v OHIM – LACTIMILK (MILRAM) on the grounds of a wrongly found similarity between the trade mark applied for by the appellant and the trade marks of Lactimilk SA	DMK Deutsches Milchkontor (Anciennement Nordmilch) v OHIM	Article 8(1) (b) of Regulation No 40/94.	Comments by 3 October 2012 Deadline for observations by 1 November 2012
C-341/12 P (Trade marks) An appeal against the judgment of the General Court in case T-101/11 on the grounds of the Courts assessment of the scope of protection and the distinctiveness of an existing figurative mark.	Mizuno v OHIM	Trade mark Law	Comments by 5 October 2012 Deadline for observations by 1 November 2012
C-337/12 P, C-338/12 P,C-339/12 P, C-340/12 P (Trade marks) These cases are appeals to the Court of Justice against the judgment of the General Court in case T-331/10 on the grounds of infringement or incorrect application of Article 7(1)(e)(iii) CTMR	PI-Design AG, Bodum France & Bodum Logistics & others v OHIM	Article 7(1)(e)(iii) of the Community trade mark	Comments by 11 October 2012 Deadline for observations by 8 November 2012
C-314/12 An Austrian reference for a preliminary ruling concerning a dispute over the availability of protected films via the internet. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	UPC Telekabel Wein	Articles 8(3) and 5(2)(B) of Directive 2001/29 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (the “Directive”)	Comments by 7 September 2012 Deadline for observations by 10 October 2012
C-299/12 Request for a preliminary ruling regarding a claim which the appellant made on the packaging of its product that it helps “to reduce a risk factor in the development of osteoporosis and fractures”. The Czech food inspection authority (‘the defendant’) considers that the appellant has made unauthorised health claims. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Green - Swan Pharmaceuticals CR	Article 2(2) (6) of Regulation 1924/2006 on nutrition and health and Article 28(2) of the Regulation	Comments by 1 August 2012 Deadline for observations by 28 September 2012
C-294/12 P An appeal against the judgment in case T-369/10 based on the General Court’s findings with regards to the degree of closeness or similarity between the goods and services and the distinctiveness of earlier marks	You-Q BV v OHIM	Article 8 (5) of Regulation No 207/2009	Comments by 17 October 2012 Deadline for observations by 16 November 2012
C-268/12 P An appeal to annul the judgment in case T-288/08 concerning an application for the registration of a community trade mark.	Cadila Healthcare Ltd v OHIM	Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure and Article 47(3) CTMR	Comments by 10 September 2012 Deadline for observations by 5 October 2012
C-266/12 P An appeal against the judgment in Case T-227/09 regarding the rejection of an application for a Trade Mark on the grounds of bad faith.	Majtczak v Feng Shen Technology Co Ltd and OHIM	article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 on the Community trade mark	Comments by 7 September 2012 Deadline for observations by 5 October 2012
C-252/12 Request for a preliminary ruling in which Specsavers alleged that 6 of its Community Trade Marks had been infringed by Asda. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Specsavers International Healthcare E.A.	Articles 9(1)(b), 9(1)(c), 15 and 51 of the CMT Regulation	Comments by 18 July 2012 Deadline for observations by 14 September 2012
C-233/12 The transfer of pension contributions credited from one Member State to the pension scheme of an international body situated in the territory of another Member State. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Gardella	Articles 20 and 45 TFEU and Article 15(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights	Comments by 12 July 2012 Deadline for observations by 7 September 2012
C-210/12 Reference from the German Federal Patent Court regarding the creation of a Supplementary Protection Certificate for plant protection products. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Sumitomo Chemical	Article 3(1) (b) and 7(1) of Regulation 1610/96	Comments by 27 June 2012 Deadline for observations by 23 August 2012
C-202/12 Reference to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of copyright legislation concerning the legal protection of databases and the extraction and/or re-utilisation of contents. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Innoweb	Article 7(1) and (5) of Directive 96/9/EC	Comments by 29 June 2012 Deadline for observations by 25 August 2012
C-171/12 P An appeal of the judgment on 1 February 2012 in the case T-291/09 (concerning Gambettola the application for a community trade mark) on the grounds of an infringement of European Union law.	Carrols v OHIM	Article 52(1) (b) of Regulation No 207/2009	Comments by 2 July 2012 Deadline for observations by 26 July 2012
C-170/12 Identification of the courts with jurisdiction in relation to an alleged cross-border copyright infringement. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Pinckney	Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments (‘the Brussels I Regulation’)	Comments by 8 June 2012 Deadline for observations 27 July 2012
C-137/12 Annulment of the Councils decision regarding the signing of the European Convention on the legal protection of services on behalf of the Union.	European Commission v Council of the European Union	Article 207(4) TFEU and Article 2(1) and 3(1) and (2) TFEU	Comments by 20 June 2012 Deadline for observations by 17 July 2012
C-122/12 P Request for annulment of the decision on the grounds that the General Court wrongly interpreted Article 74(2) of Council Regulation (EC) and on the ground of misuse of power.	Bernhard Rintish v OHIM	Article 74(2) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation	Comments by 25 June 2012 Deadline for observations 19 July 2012
C-121/12 P Request for annulment of the decision on the grounds that the General Court wrongly interpreted Article 74(2) of Council Regulation (EC) and on the ground of misuse of power.	Bernhard Rintish v OHIM	Article 74(2) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation	Comments by 25 June 2012 Deadline for observations 19 July 2012
C-97/12 P An appeal against the judgment of the General Court as it dismissed the appeal against the decision of the First Board of Appeal concerning invalidity proceedings.	Vuitton Malletier v OHIM	Article 7(l)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation	Comments by 12 May 2012 Deadline to intervene 7 June 2012
C-65/12 Whether article 5(2) of the Trade Mark Directive is to be interpreted as meaning that there is “due cause” where the sign that is identical or similar to the trade mark with a reputation was already being used in good faith by the third party concerned before that mark was filed. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Leidseplein Beheer B.V and Hendrikus Jacobus Marinus De Vries v Red Bull GmbH and Red Bull Nederland B.V.	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	Comments by 26 March 2012 Deadline for observations 24 May 2012
C-42/12 An appeal against the judgment of the General Court. The grounds for appeal are that the General Court did not examine the marks at issue on the basis of the criteria of ‘global assessment’ or ‘overall impression’.	Václav Hrbek v OHIM, Outdoor Group Ltd (The)	Article 65(2) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark	Comments by 13 April 2012 Deadline for observations 10 May 2012
C-41/12 An appeal against the judgment of the General Court concerning the appellant’s views that the General Court failed to take account of all the factual background and circumstances of the proceedings, resulting in the Judgment under appeal being based on incomplete facts.	Monster Cable Products, Inc v OHIM, Live Nation Music Limited	Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No.40/94 on the Community trade mark	Comments by 23 March 2012 Deadline for observations 20 April 2012
C-21/12 An appeal against the judgment of the General Court for four separate reasons including infringement of Article 7(1) (b) of the regulation due to lack of distinctive character.	Abbott Laboratories v OHIM	Article 7(1)(c), Article 7(1)(b) and Article 75 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark	Comments by 13 April 2012 Deadline for observations 10 May 2012
C-14/12 An appeal against the judgment of the General Court concerning the likelihood of confusion with earlier registered marks	Sheilesh Shah, Akhil Shah v OHIM, Three-N-Products Private Ltd	Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark	Comments by 22 March 2012 Deadline for observations 20 April 2012
C-12/12 Whether Article 15(1) of the regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark which is part of a composite mark and has become distinctive only as a result of the use of the composite mark can be used to preserve the rights attached to it if the composite mark alone is used. Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union	Colloseum Holding AG v Levi Strauss & Co.	Article 15(1) and 7(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community Trade Marks	Comments by 24 February 2012 Deadline for observations 23 April 2012

Cookies on GOV.UK

1. Table of cases

1.1 C-617/12

Astrazeneca AB

1.2 C-583/12

Sintax Trading

1.3 C-493/12

Eli Lilly & Co

1.4 C-484/12

Georgetown University

1.5 C-479/12

Gautzsch Grobhandel

1.6 C-477/12

Hogan Lovells International LLP v Bayer Cropscience KK

1.7 C-466/12

Svensson E.A.

1.8 C-463/12

Copydan Copydan Båndkopi

1.9 C-443/12

Actavia Group et Activas

1.10 C-435/12

ACI Adam E.A.

1.11 C-409/12

Backaldrin Osterreich The Kornspitz Company

1.12 C-387/12

Hi Hotel HCF

1.13 C-360/12

Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH v First Note Perfumes N.V.

1.14 C-355/12

Nintendo e.a.

1.15 C-351/12

OSA (Referring Court: Krajský soud v Plzni)

1.16 C-314/12

UPC Telekabel Wein

1.17 C-299/12

Green - Swan Pharmaceuticals CR

1.18 C-252/12

Specsavers International Healthcare E.A.

1.19 C-233/12

Gardella

1.20 C-210/12

Sumitomo Chemical

1.21 C-202/12

Innoweb

1.22 C-170/12

Pinckney

1.23 C-65/12

Leidseplein Beheer B.V. and Hendrikus Jacobus Marinus De Vries v Red Bull GmbH and Red Bull Nederland B.V.

1.24 C-12/12

Colloseum Holding AG v Levi Strauss & Co.

Is this page useful?

Help us improve GOV.UK

Help us improve GOV.UK