Notice

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

Updated 24 May 2017

Table of cases

Case and subject Parties Legislation Pre-hearing
C-148/17

A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns an action for invalidity or revocation of a German national trade mark which forms the basis of a claim for the seniority of an EU trade mark.

Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union
Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg and Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf Article 14 of Directive 2008/95/EC Article 34(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 Comments by 19 May 2017

Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 17 July 2017
C-129/17

A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns an action for infringement of an EU trade mark.

Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union
Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd, Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe BV and Duma Forklifts NV, G.S. International BVBA Article 5 of Directive 2008/95/EC

Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC)No 207/2009

Article 267 TFEU
Comments by 17 May 2017

Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 13 July 2017
C-121/17

A request for a preliminary ruling in a case which concerns certificates for medicinal products

Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union
Teva UK, Accord Healthcare Limited, Lupin Limited, Lupin Europe Limited, Generics (UK) Limited and Gilead Sciences Inc Article 267 TFEU

Article 3(a) of Regulation No. 469/2009
Comments by 25 April 2017

Deadline for UK to lodge observations with the CJ 21 June 2017
C-95/17 P

European Trade Marks: appeal against the decision of the General Court in cases T-112/13
European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) & Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Article 36, Statute of the Court of Justice

Articles 7(3) and 52(2) of Regulation No 207/2009
Comments by 7 June 2017

Deadline for UK to apply to intervene 3 July 2017
C-75/17 P European Trade Marks: appeal against the decision of the General Court in cases T-217/15

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) & Fiesta Hotels and Resorts Article 8(4) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 Article 8(4)(b) of the EU trade mark Regulation Comments by 31 May 2017

Deadline for UK to apply to intervene 26 June 2017
C-32/17 P

European Trade Marks: appeal against the decision of the General Court in cases T-268/15 and T-272/15
European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) & Apcoa Parking Holdings GmbH Article 7(1)(b) of the European Trade Mark Regulation Comments by 31 May 2017

Deadline for UK to apply to intervene 26 June 2017
C-26/17 P

European Trade Marks: appeal against the decision of the General Court in cases T-579/14
European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Birkenstock Sales GmbH Article 7(1)(b) of the European Trade Mark Regulation Comments by 31 May 2017

Deadline for UK to apply to intervene 26 June 2017

Case: C-148/17

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

  1. Is the fact that the invalidity or revocation of a national trade mark which forms the basis of a claim for the seniority of an EU trade mark and which has been surrendered or allowed to lapse may be established a posteriori only where the conditions of invalidity or revocation are present not only at the time when the trade mark was surrendered or allowed to lapse but also at the time of the judicial decision establishing its invalidity or revocation, compatible with Article 14 of Directive 2008/95/EC?

  2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative: Does claiming seniority under Article 34(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 have the effect that the right under the national trade mark lapses and can no longer be used in such a way as to maintain rights attached to it, or is the national trade mark preserved by virtue of EU law, even though it no longer exists in the register of the Member State concerned, with the result that it can and must continue to be used in such a way as to maintain the rights attached to it

Case: C-129/17

The questions referred for a preliminary ruling:

  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 trademark proprietor?

Case: C-121/17

The question to be referred under Article 267 TFEU:

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