- 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-254/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 9 June 2020 — PI Pharma NV v Novartis AG, Novartis Pharma NV
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CN0254
62020CN0254
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
7.9.2020
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 297/29
(Case C-254/20)
(2020/C 297/40)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: PI Pharma NV
Respondents: Novartis AG, Novartis Pharma NV
Questions referred
1.Must Articles 34 to 36 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that, where a branded medicine (reference medicine) and a generic medicine have been put on the market in the EEA by economically linked undertakings, a trade mark proprietor’s opposition to the further commercialisation of the generic medicine by a parallel importer after the repackaging of that generic medicine by the affixing to it of the trade mark of the branded medicine (reference medicine) in the country of importation may lead to an artificial partitioning of the markets of the Member States?
2.If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, must the trade mark proprietor’s opposition to that rebranding be assessed by reference to the BMS conditions?
3.Is it relevant to the answer to those questions that the generic medicine and the branded medicine (reference medicine) are identical or have the same therapeutic effect as referred to in Article 3(2) of the Koninklijk besluit van 19 april 2001 inzake parallelinvoer (Royal Decree of 19 April 2001 on parallel imports)?