Log in


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
Daimler internet advertising reference for the CJEU

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.

Posted by: Blog Administrator @ 00.06
Tags: CJEU reference, online advertisement,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA4105
Reader Comments: 1
Post a Comment

Submitted By: Peter Groves
12 June 2015 @ 06.55
The Dutch government, in inviting comments, gives more detail than the IPO does: see http://www.minbuza.nl/ecer/hof-van-justitie/nieuwe-hofzaken-inclusief-verwijzingsuitspraak/2015/c-zakennummers/c-179-15-daimler.html and see what Google Translate can do, or visit http://motorlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/references-to-court-of-justice-of.html. It seems to be that a former Mercedes authorised repairer was still being advertised by third party agencies as such, despite the garage requesting them to stop: so the question is, does the unwilling subject of a third party's advertisement infringe? But if anyone with a better understanding of Dutch is able to do better, I would be pleased to know!

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








+44 (0)116 2747355
+44 (0)116 2747365

Unit Q, Troon Way Business Centre
Humberstone Lane, Leicester


Ingrid de Groot
Internal Relations Officer
Alessandra Romeo
External Relations Officer
James Nurton
Newsletter Editor
Robert Harrison

Signup for our blogs.
Headlines delivered to your inbox