- 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-197/21: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 October 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Soda-Club (CO2) SA, SodaStream International BV v MySoda Oy (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Trade-mark law — Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 15(2) — Directive (EU) 2015/2436 — Article 15(2) — Exhaustion of the rights conferred by the trade mark — Cylinders containing carbon dioxide — Placing on the market in a Member State by the trade mark proprietor — Activity of a reseller consisting in refilling and relabelling cylinders — Opposition brought by the trade mark proprietor — Legitimate reasons to oppose further commercialisation of the goods bearing the trade mark)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CA0197
62021CA0197
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
12.12.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 472/12
(Case C-197/21) (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Trade-mark law - Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 15(2) - Directive (EU) 2015/2436 - Article 15(2) - Exhaustion of the rights conferred by the trade mark - Cylinders containing carbon dioxide - Placing on the market in a Member State by the trade mark proprietor - Activity of a reseller consisting in refilling and relabelling cylinders - Opposition brought by the trade mark proprietor - Legitimate reasons to oppose further commercialisation of the goods bearing the trade mark)
(2022/C 472/14)
Language of the case: Finnish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Soda-Club (CO2) SA, SodaStream International BV
Defendant: MySoda Oy
Operative part of the judgment
Article 15(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark and Article 15(2) of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks
must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark who has put on the market, in a Member State, goods bearing that mark and intended to be re-used and refilled many times, is not entitled, under those provisions, to oppose further commercialisation of those goods, in that Member State, by a reseller who has refilled them and has replaced the label, on which the original mark appeared, by another labelling, while leaving the original mark on those goods, unless that new labelling creates a false impression in the minds of consumers that there is an economic connection between the reseller and the trade mark proprietor. That likelihood of confusion must be assessed globally in the light of the information appearing on the product and its new labelling and having regard to the distribution practices of the sector concerned and the level of knowledge that consumers have of those practices.
(*) Language of the case: Finnish.