Log in

CLASS 46


Now in its twelfth year, Class 46 is dedicated to European trade mark law and practice. This weblog is written by a team of enthusiasts who want to spread the word and share their thoughts with others.

Want to receive Class 46 by email?
Click here subscribe for free.

Who we all are...
Anthonia Ghalamkarizadeh
Birgit Clark
Blog Administrator
Christian Tenkhoff
Fidel Porcuna
Gino Van Roeyen
Markku Tuominen
Niamh Hall
Nikos Prentoulis
Stefan Schröter
Tomasz Rychlicki
Yvonne Onomor
THURSDAY, 10 APRIL 2008
Federal Patent Court: references to the ECJ in "BILD.T-ONLINE" and "ZVS Zeitungsvertrieb Stuttgart GmbH"

The German Bundespatentgericht (Federal Patent Court) recently referred two cases as a joined case to the ECJ, asking for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 3 of Directive 89/104/EEC seeking equal treatment of applicants in competition in the registration of trade marks. The cases are C-39/08 "BILD.T-ONLINE" - in Germany known as "Volks-Handy, Volks-Camcorder, Volks-Kredit" - and C-43/08 "ZVS Zeitungsvertrieb Stuttgart GmbH"; in Germany known as "SCHWABENPOST".

On its website the UKIPO now provides an English translation of the questions the Federal Patent Court has referred to the ECJ:

"The interpretation of Article 3 of Directive 89/104 on trade marks, specifically
1. Does Article 3 of Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, which seeks to secure equality of opportunity in matters of competition, require that identical or similar applications be treated in the same way?

2. If the answer is 'yes', is the national court required to investigate specific indications of unequal treatment which distorts competition and, in doing so, to take account, in its analysis, of earlier decisions of the competent authority in similar cases?

3. If the answer is 'yes', is the national court required to take account of the prohibition of discrimination having the effect of distorting competition when interpreting and applying Article 3 of Directive 89/104 if it has established discrimination of that nature?

4. If Questions 1 to 3 are answered in the negative, in order to prevent distortion of competition, must it be possible under national legislation for the national authority to be placed under an obligation to initiate, of its own motion, an action for the annulment of trade marks which have previously been wrongly registered?"

The deadline for UK observations concerning these cases is 18 June 2008 and comments should be sent to the UKIPO by 18 April 2008 (more information here).

The Federal Patent Court's advance publication concerning "SCHWABENPOST" can be found here, the court's advance publication concerning "Volks-Handy, Volks-Camcorder, Volks-Kredit" here (both in German).

Posted by: Birgit Clark @ 12.20
Tags: Bundespatentgericht, ECJ,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA321
Reader Comments: 0
Post a Comment


MARQUES does not guarantee the accuracy of the information in this blog. The views are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of MARQUES. Seek professional advice before action on any information included here.


The Class 46 Archive






 

 

 

 

 

 


CONTACT

info@marques.org
+44 (0)116 2747355
POST ADDRESS

9 Cartwright Court, Cartwright Way
Bardon, Leicestershire
LE67 1UE

EMAIL

Ingrid de Groot
Internal Relations Officer
ingrid.de.groot@marques.org
Alessandra Romeo
External Relations Officer
aromeo@marques.org
James Nurton
Newsletter Editor
editor@marques.org
Robert Harrison
Webmaster
robertharrison@marques.org
BLOGS

Signup for our blogs.
Headlines delivered to your inbox