- 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-655/21, G. ST. T. (Proportionality of the penalty for trade mark infringement): Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 October 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad — Nesebar — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against G. ST. T. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Enforcement of intellectual property rights — Directive 2004/48/EC — Article 13 — Criminal procedure — Scope — Harm suffered by the trade mark proprietor as a constituent element of the offence — Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) — Article 61 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 51(1) — Implementation of EU law — Powers — Article 49(1) and (3) — Legality and proportionality of penalties)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CA0655
62021CA0655
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
Official Journal of the European Union
Series C
C/2023/1102
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Enforcement of intellectual property rights - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 13 - Criminal procedure - Scope - Harm suffered by the trade mark proprietor as a constituent element of the offence - Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) - Article 61 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 51(1) - Implementation of EU law - Powers - Article 49(1) and (3) - Legality and proportionality of penalties)
(C/2023/1102)
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Referring court
Parties in the main proceedings
Interested party: Rayonna prokuratura Burgas, TO Nesebar
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that the principle of the legality of criminal offences and penalties does not preclude national legislation which provides, where a trade mark is used in the course of trade without the consent of the holder of the exclusive right, that the same conduct may be categorised both as an administrative offence and as a criminal offence, without that legislation including criteria allowing a distinction to be drawn between, on the one hand, the administrative offence and, on the other, the criminal offence, the offence being described in similar, or identical, terms, in the criminal law and the law on trade marks.
2.Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding a national legal provision that provides for a custodial sentence of a minimum of five years where a trade mark is used, repeatedly or with significant harmful effects, in the course of trade without the consent of the holder of the exclusive right.
(1) OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2023/1102/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)