Case C-179/15 Daimler is yet another trade mark case that has been referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling. The question, posed by a court in Hungary, are as follows:

Must Article 5(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104 ... to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks be interpreted as meaning that the trade mark proprietor is entitled to take action against a third party named in an advertisement on the internet, which features a sign likely to be confused with the trade mark, referring to a service of that third party identical to the goods or services for which the trade mark is registered, in such a way that the public might be given the mistaken impression that there is an official commercial relationship between the undertaking of that third party and the trade mark proprietor, even though the advertisement was not placed on the internet by the person featuring in it or on his behalf, and it is possible to access that advertisement on the internet despite the fact that the person named in it took all reasonable steps to have it removed, but did not succeed in doing so?

As usual, if you would like to comment on this case for the benefit of the UK Intellectual Property Office, please email policy@ipo.gov.uk by 15 June 2015.