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-252/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 16 May 2012 — Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd, Specsavers BV, Specsavers Optical Group Ltd, Specsavers Optical Superstores Ltd v Asda Stores Ltd

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012CN0252

62012CN0252

May 16, 2012
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

28.7.2012

Official Journal of the European Union

C 227/13

(Case C-252/12)

2012/C 227/18

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Specsavers International Healthcare Ltd, Specsavers BV, Specsavers Optical Group Ltd, Specsavers Optical Superstores Ltd

Defendants: Asda Stores Ltd

Questions referred

1.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?

2.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?

3.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?

4.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?

5.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?

*

OJ L 78, p. 1

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