EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case C-17/24, Ceram Tec: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 11 January 2024 – CeramTec GmbH v CoorStek Bioceramics LLC

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024CN0017

62024CN0017

January 11, 2024
With Google you find a lot.
With us you find everything. Try it now!

I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!

Valentina R., lawyer

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

C/2024/2288

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 11 January 2024 — CeramTec GmbH v CoorStek Bioceramics LLC

(Case C-17/24, Ceram Tec)

(C/2024/2288)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: CeramTec GmbH

Respondent: CoorStek Bioceramics LLC

Questions referred

1.Is Article 52 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the grounds for invalidity set out in Article 7, to which Article 52(1)(a) refers, are independent from and do not overlap with the ground of bad faith referred to in Article 52(1)(b)?

2.If the first question is answered in the negative, may the bad faith of the applicant be assessed by reference solely to the absolute ground for refusal of registration set out in Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009 where no finding has been made that the sign for which registration as a trade mark was sought consists exclusively of the shape of the product which is necessary to obtain a technical result?

3.Is Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 to be interpreted as meaning that bad faith is to be ruled out where the applicant has applied for registration of a trade mark with the intention of protecting a technical solution and, after the application was made, it is discovered that there was no connection between the technical solution in question and the signs which constitute the trade mark applied for?

(1) OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/2288/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia