- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-179/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 21 April 2015 — Daimler AG v Együd Garage Gépjárműjavító és Értékesítő Kft.
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015CN0179
62015CN0179
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
13.7.2015
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 228/4
(Case C-179/15)
(2015/C 228/05)
Language of the case: Hungarian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Daimler AG
Defendant: Együd Garage Gépjárműjavító és Értékesítő Kft.
Question referred
Must Article 5(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks be interpreted as meaning that the trade mark proprietor is entitled to take action against a third party named in an advertisement on the internet, which features a sign likely to be confused with the trade mark, referring to a service of that third party identical to the goods or services for which the trade mark is registered, in such a way that the public might be given the mistaken impression that there is an official commercial relationship between the undertaking of that third party and the trade mark proprietor, even though the advertisement was not placed on the internet by the person featuring in it or on his behalf, and it is possible to access that advertisement on the internet despite the fact that the person named in it took all reasonable steps to have it removed, but did not succeed in doing so?
First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1).
* * *