Official Journal of the European Union

C 266/5

(Case C-466/20) (*)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 9 - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 54, 110 and 111 - Limitation in consequence of acquiescence - Concept of ‘acquiescence’ - Interruption of the period of limitation in consequence of acquiescence - Sending of a warning letter - Date of interruption of the period of limitation in the event of a court action being initiated - Effects of limitation - Application for damages, the provision of information and destruction of goods)

(2022/C 266/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: HEITEC AG

Defendant: HEITECH Promotion GmbH, RW

Operative part of the judgment

1.Article 9 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 and Articles 54, 110 and 111 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that an act, such as a warning letter, by which the proprietor of an earlier mark or other earlier right opposes the use of a later mark without taking the necessary steps to obtain a legally binding solution does not stop acquiescence and, consequently, does not interrupt the period of limitation;

2.Article 9 of Directive 2008/95 and Articles 54, 110 and 111 of Regulation No 207/2009 must be interpreted to mean that the limitation in consequence of acquiescence referred to in those provisions may not be prevented by the bringing of a court action in which the proprietor of an earlier mark or other earlier right sought a declaration of invalidity of a later mark or opposed the use of that mark, where the application initiating proceedings, although filed before the date of expiry of the period of limitation, did not, owing to a lack of diligence on the part of the applicant, satisfy the requirements of the applicable national law for service and was rectified only after that date for reasons attributable to the applicant;

3.Article 9 of Directive 2008/95 and Articles 54, 110 and 111 of Regulation No 207/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the proprietor of an earlier mark or other earlier right, within the meaning of those provisions, is time-barred from seeking a declaration of invalidity of a later mark and from opposing the use of that mark, that proprietor is also time-barred from bringing ancillary or related claims, such as claims for damages, the provision of information or the destruction of goods.

(*) Language of the case: German

OJ C 443, 21.12.2020