Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here!

The team is joined by GuestKats Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot, Jocelyn Bosse, Alessandro Cerri, Anastasiia Kyrylenko, Marcel Pemsel and Anna Maria Stein.

SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Antonios Baris (Book Review Editor), Rose Hughes (PatKat) and Chijioke Okorie (Africa Correspondent).

InternKats: Asude Sena Moya and Söğüt Atilla.
Home / ecj reference / Jeremy Phillips / ECJ takes delivery of DHL reference

ECJ takes delivery of DHL reference

- ,
On his travels at the moment, IPKat team member Jeremy was just checking the Curia website for hot news and he found this: a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Communities of a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation, France, lodged on 29 June 2009 but so far quite unknown to him: it's Case C-235/09 DHL Express France SAS v Chronopost SA. Anyway, the questions referred to this august tribunal are these:
"1. Must Article 98 of Council Regulation ... 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition issued by a Community trade mark court has effect as a matter of law throughout the entire area of the Community? [This Regulation was repealed on 13 April 2009 by Council Regulation 207/2009. Presumably an unkindly literal interpretation of this question requires the answer "no"]

2. If not, is that court [erroneous comment sent out to mail subscribers deleted] entitled to apply specifically that prohibition to the territories of other States in which the acts of infringement are committed or threatened?

3. In either case, are the coercive measures which the court, by application of its national law, has attached to the prohibition issued by it applicable within the territories of the Member States in which that prohibition would have effect?

4. In the contrary case [Contrary to what?], may that court order such a coercive measure, similar to or different from that which it adopts pursuant to its national law, by application of the national laws of the States in which that prohibition would have effect?"
Does any reader know what set of facts generated this reference? Or indeed, wails Merpel, what exactly the questions mean?

Regulation 207/2009 on the Community trade mark here
Note by Class 46 on the new consolidating Regulation here
ECJ takes delivery of DHL reference ECJ takes delivery of DHL reference Reviewed by Jeremy on Tuesday, September 01, 2009 Rating: 5

3 comments:

  1. Mike DowlerTuesday, 1 September 2009 at 22:59:00 GMT+1

    Jeremy, I know it's late and all, but the court is definitely mentioned in Question 1:

    1. Must Article 98 of Council Regulation ... 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition issued by a Community trade mark court has effect as a matter of law throughout the entire area of the Community?

    ReplyDelete
  2. JeremyWednesday, 2 September 2009 at 08:09:00 GMT+1

    Thanks, Mike -- it was later than you realised since I'm in a different time zone, two hours ahead. I'll amend the post accordingly.

    ReplyDelete
  3. MalteWednesday, 2 September 2009 at 08:41:00 GMT+1

    The ECJ might issue a short ruling (albeit longer then "no") by answering the first two questions with a reference to Art. 94 (98 new regulation) CTMR - the territorial effect depends on the basis upon which the CTM-court assumes its competence.

    It would be more interesting to obtain an answer to the question whether the claimant must expressively claim Community wide effect and whether he is allowed to define the scope of the decision if the CTM-court has Community wide competence pursuant to Art. 94 (1)/98 (1) CTMR.

    The answers to questions 3&4 could be more interesting although (according to Art. 98 (2)/102 (2) CTMR) don't they depend on the private international law of the respective Member State in the first place ?

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )
Powered by Blogger.