Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/13

(Case C-180/11) (<span class="super">1</span>)

(Directive 2004/48/EC - Rules governing the examination of evidence in a dispute before a national court before which an application for annulment of the protection of a utility model has been brought - Powers of the national court - Paris Convention - TRIPS Agreement)

2013/C 9/19

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Bericap Záródástechnikai bt

Defendant: Plastinnova 2000 kft

Intervener: Magyar Szabadalmi Hivatal

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Bíróság — Interpretation of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights in Annex 1C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation, the Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, signed in Paris on 20 March 1883, and of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45) — Rules for the examination of evidence in a dispute before a national court before which an application for annulment of the protection of a utility model has been brought — Powers of the national court

Operative part of the judgment

Inasmuch as the provisions of Articles 2(1) and 3(2) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, interpreted in the light of Article 2(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, signed in Paris on 20 March 1883, last revised at Stockholm on 14 July 1967 and amended on 28 September 1979, and of Article 41(1) and (2) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, which constitutes Annex 1C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (WTO) signed at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994 and approved by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986 to 1994), are not applicable to an invalidation procedure such as that at issue in the main proceedings, those provisions do not preclude that, in such judicial proceedings, the court:

is not bound by the claims and other statements made by the parties and is entitled to order of its own motion the production of any evidence that it may deem necessary;

is not bound by an administrative decision made in relation to an application for invalidation or by the findings of fact in that decision, and

is not entitled to re-examine evidence which was already submitted in connection with a previous application for invalidation.

Language of the case: Hungarian

*

* * *

(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.