Class 46 previously reported the French Cour de cassation decisions to querry the ECJ on trade mark use in connection with sponsored links. At the time we provided an unofficial translation of the three questions passed to the ECJ in the Vuitton case.

The official translation is now available:

Questions referred

Must Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks ¹ and Article 9(1)(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark ² be interpreted as meaning that a provider of a paid referencing service who makes available to advertisers keywords reproducing or imitating registered trade marks and arranges by the referencing agreement to create and favourably display, on the basis of those keywords, advertising links to sites offering infringing goods is using those trade marks in a manner which their proprietor is entitled to prevent?

In the event that the trade marks have a reputation, may the proprietor oppose such use under Article 5(2) of the directive and Article 9(1)(c) of the regulation?

In the event that such use does not constitute a use which may be prevented by the trade mark proprietor under the directive or the regulation, may the provider of the paid referencing service be regarded as providing an information society service consisting of the storage of information provided by the recipient of the service, within the meaning of Article 14 of Directive 2000/31 of 8 June 2000, ³ so that that provider cannot incur liability until it has been notified by the trade mark proprietor of the unlawful use of the sign by the advertiser?

____________

¹ - OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.

² - OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.

³ - Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market ('Directive on electronic commerce') (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1).

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 3 June 2008 - Google France, Google Inc. v Louis Vuitton Malletier(Case C-236/08).)

• Google France v Viaticum, Luteciel (Case C-237/08)
• Google France v CNRRH, Pierre-Alexis Thonet, Bruno Raboin, Tiger, a franchisee of 'Unicis' (Case C-238/08)