- 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-553/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Bernhard Rintisch v Klaus Eder (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 10(1) and (2)(a) — Genuine use — Use in a form, itself registered as a trade mark, differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark — Temporal effects of a judgment)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011CA0553
62011CA0553
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
22.12.2012
Official Journal of the European Union
C 399/7
(Case C-553/11)(1)
(Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 10(1) and (2)(a) - Genuine use - Use in a form, itself registered as a trade mark, differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark - Temporal effects of a judgment)
2012/C 399/10
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Bernhard Rintisch
Respondent: Klaus Eder
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 10(1) and (2)(a) of 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) — Concept of ‘use of the trade mark’ — National legislation whereby use of the trade mark in a form different from the form in which it was registered may also be regarded as use of a registered trade mark, provided that the differences do not alter the distinctive character of the mark — Registration of a trade mark in order to secure or expand the protection of another registered trade mark — Legitimate expectations — Whether a change deriving from case-law is applicable to situations that had already arisen at the date of delivery of the judgment in question
Operative part of the judgment
Article 10(2)(a) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a registered trade mark is not precluded from relying, in order to establish use of the trade mark for the purposes of that provision, on the fact that it is used in a form which differs from the form in which it was registered, without the differences between the two forms altering the distinctive character of that trade mark, even though that different form is itself registered as a trade mark.
Article 10(2)(a) of Directive 89/104 must be interpreted as precluding an interpretation of the national provision intended to transpose it into domestic law whereby Article 10(2)(a) does not apply to a ‘defensive’ trade mark which is registered only in order to secure or expand the protection of another registered trade mark that is registered in the form in which it is used.
OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.