I – Introduction

I – Introduzzjoni

1. The present case arises by way of a reference for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 267 TFEU from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Court of Appeal, Brussels) (Belgium) (‘the referring court’) by which it has referred to the Court two questions on the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 733/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 April 2002 on the implementation of the .eu Top Level Domain (2) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the .eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration. (3)

1. Din il-kawża hija bbażata fuq deċiżjoni ta’ rinviju tal-Cour d’appel de Bruxelles skont l-Artikolu 267 TFUE, li permezz tagħha din adiet lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja b’żewġ domandi dwar l-interpretazzjoni tar-Regolament (KE) Nru 733/2002 tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill, tat-22 ta’ April 2002, dwar l-implimentazzjoni tal-Qasam tal-Ogħla Livell EU. [tad-dominju tal-ogħla livell .eu] (2) kif ukoll tar-Regolament tal-Kummissjoni (KE) Nru 874/2004, tat-28 ta’ April 2004, li jippreskrivi r-regoli tal-politika pubblika li jikkonċernaw l-implimentazzjoni u l-funzjonijiet tad-Dominju tal-Ogħla Livell.eu u l-prinċipji li jirregolaw ir-reġistrazzjoni (3) .

2. The reference for a preliminary ruling was made in the context of a legal dispute between Pie Optiek SPRL (‘Pie Optiek’), a Belgian company which sells optical products through the internet, the firm Bureau Gevers SA (‘Bureau Gevers’), a Belgian company operating as an intellectual property consultancy, and the European Registry for Internet Domains ASBL (‘EURid’), the body responsible for the allocation of .eu domain names, concerning the registration of the domain name ‘lensworld.eu’. By its claims brought before the national courts, Pie Optiek seeks, first, a declaration that Bureau Gevers’ registration of that domain name was speculative and abusive. Second, Pie Optiek seeks to have that domain name transferred to it.

2. It-talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari nħolqot fil-kuntest ta’ kontroversja bejn SPRL Pie Optiek (iktar ’il quddiem Pie Optiek) - kumpannija stabbilita taħt il-liġi Belġjana, li tbigħ prodotti ottiċi bl-internet – u SA Bureau Gevers (iktar ’il quddiem Bureau Gevers) – kumpannija stabbilita taħt il-liġi Belġjana li topera fil-konsulenza fil-qasam tal-proprjetà intellettwali – kif ukoll l-ASBL European Registry for Internet Domains (aktar ’il quddiem EURid), fir-rigward tar-reġistrazzjoni tal-isem tad-dominju “www.lensworld.eu”. Permezz tat-talbiet tagħha mressqa quddiem il-qrati nazzjonali, Pie Optiek tixtieq li, minn naħa, jiġi kkonstatat li r-reġistrazzjoni ta’ dan l-isem ta’ dominju favur Bureau Gevers saret b’mod spekulattiv u abbużiv. Min-naħa l-oħra, hija tixtieq li dan l-isem ta’ dominju jiġi attribwit lilha.

3. In support of those claims Pie Optiek argues, in essence, that Bureau Gevers has no right to the registration of that domain name as it is not itself a ‘holder of a prior right’ within the meaning of Regulation No 874/2004. Instead, the holder of such a right is the United States company Walsh Optical. However, Walsh Optical is not entitled to apply for registration as its registered office is not within the European Union and, consequently, it does not meet the legal requirements. According to Pie Optiek, in order to circumvent the eligibility criteria, Walsh Optical and Bureau Gevers implemented a strategy consisting in the conclusion of an agreement entitled ‘Licence Agreement’, whereby Bureau Gevers agreed to lend its name and address within the European Union in order to allow its United States client to register the domain name at issue. In addition, Pie Optiek questions whether the agreement at issue can be regarded as a licence agreement at all within the legal meaning of that term, as Bureau Gevers was authorised simply to register but not to make use of the trade mark, for example, for the purpose of marketing of goods or services under that trade mark.

3. Fil-motivi tagħha hija ssostni, essenzjalment, li Bureau Gevers ma għandhiex id-dritt li tirreġistra dan l-isem ta’ dominju, għaliex din stess ma hijiex “detentriċi ta’ drittijiet minn qabel [preċedenti” fis-sens tar-Regolament Nru 874/2004. Għall-kuntrarju, id-detentriċi ta’ tali drittijiet hija l-kumpannija Amerikana Walsh Optical. Fil-fatt, din tal-aħħar ma għandhiex id-dritt li titlob ir-reġistrazzjoni, peress li din stess għanda s-sede tagħha barra mill-Unjoni Ewropea, u għalhekk ma tissodisfax il-kundizzjonijiet legali. Skont Pie Optiek, iż-żewġ impriżi rrikorrew għal muntaġġ biex jevitaw il-kundizzjonijiet relattivi għad-dritt ta’ reġistrazzjoni meta kkonkludew kuntratt imsejjaħ “kuntratt ta’ liċenzjar” li fih Bureau Gevers obbligat ruħha li toffri isimha u l-indirizz tagħha fl-Unjoni Ewropea biex il-klijenta Amerikana tagħha tkun tista’ tipproċedi għar-reġistrazzjoni tal-isem tad-dominju inkwistjoni. Barra minn hekk, Pie Optiek saħansitra tikkontesta li fil-kawża prinċipali ġie konkluż kuntratt ta’ liċenzjar fis-sens ġuridiku tat-terminu, peress li Bureau Gevers kisbet biss id-dritt li tirreġistra u mhux li tuża t-trade mark sabiex tbigħ il-prodotti jew is-servizzi taħt din it-trade mark.

4. Consequently, the reference for a preliminary ruling concerns, above all, the question whether in the present case a licence agreement in the legal sense of that term may be said to exist in relation to the word mark ‘lensworld’. Further, the question arises whether it is compatible with European Union (‘EU’) law to allow a company which, by reason of its establishment in a third country, is not an eligible party, nevertheless to register a domain name on the basis of a licence agreement with a company that is established in the European Union. The present case raises fundamental questions both as to the legal nature of licence agreements and as to the relationship between EU law on intangible property and on the internet, requiring detailed examination. This will require interpretation not only of the abovementioned regulations but also of Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (4) and Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark. (5)

4. Għalhekk, is-suġġett tat-talba għal rinviju preliminari jittratta fuq kollox il-kwistjoni dwar jekk, fil-kawża prinċipali, wieħed jistax jitkellem fuq kuntratt ta’ liċenzjar fis-sens ġuridiku tat-terminu fir-rigward tat-trade mark verbali “lensworld”. Barra minn hekk, tqum il-kwistjoni dwar jekk huwiex konformi mad-dritt tal-Unjoni li kumpannija li ma tkunx awtorizzata tipproċedi għal reġistrazzjoni minħabba l-fatt li din tkun stabbilita fi Stat terz tipproċedi xorta waħda biex tirreġistra isem ta’ dominju bl-użu ta’ kuntratt ta’ liċenzjar konkluż ma’ kumpannija stabbilita fl-Unjoni. Il-kawża preżenti tqajjem kwistjonijiet fundamentali li jeżiġu eżami dettaljat, kemm f’dak li jirrigwarda n-natura ġuridika ta’ kuntratti ta’ liċenzjar u kemm fir-rigward tar-relazzjoni li teżisti bejn id-dritt ta’ proprjetà intellettwali u d-dritt tal-Internet tal-Unjoni. Għal dan il-għan, għandhom jiġu interpretati mhux biss ir-regolamenti ċċitati iktar ’il fuq iżda wkoll id-Direttiva tal-Kunsill, tal-21 ta’ Diċembru 1988, biex jiġu approssimati l-liġijiet tal-Istati Membri (4) dwar it-trade marks (89/104/KEE) (5) .

II – Legal framework

II – Il-kuntest ġuridiku

A – Regulation No 733/2002

A – Ir-Regolament Nru 733/2002

5. Pursuant to Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 733/2002, the Registry is to register ‘domain names in the .eu TLD through any accredited .eu Registrar requested by any ... undertaking having its registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the Community’.

5. L-Artikolu 4(2)(b) tar-Regolament Nru 733/2002 jipprovdi li l-imsemmi reġistru għandu “jirreġistra ta’ l-ismijiet ta’ qasam ta’ .eu TLD permezz ta’ Reġistratur.eu akkreditat mitlub minn [jirreġistra fit-TLD .eu, permezz ta’ kwalunkwe uffiċċju ta’ reġistrazzjoni akkreditat .eu, l-ismijiet ta’ dominju mitluba minn kwalunkwe] impriża li jkollha l-uffiċċju reġistrat tagħha, l-amministrazzjoni ċentrali [tagħha] jew il-post prinċipali tan-negozju [tagħha] ġewwa l-Komunità”.

6. Pursuant to Article 5(1)(b) of that regulation, the Commission is to adopt ‘public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the .eu TLD and the public policy principles on registration. Public policy shall include ... public policy on speculative and abusive registration of domain names including the possibility of registrations of domain names in a phased manner to ensure appropriate temporary opportunities for the holders of prior rights recognised or established by national and/or Community law and for public bodies to register their names ...’.

6. Skont l-Artikolu 5(1)(b) ta’ dan ir-regolament, “[i]l-Kummissjoni għandha tadotta regoli ta’ politika pubblika li jikkonċernaw l-implimentazzjoni u l-funzjonijiet ta’ .eu TLD u l-prinċipji tal-politika pubblika dwar ir-reġistrazzjoni. Il-politika pubblika għandha tinkludi […] politika pubblika dwar reġistrazzjoni spekulattiva u abużiva ta’ ismijiet ta’ qasam [ta’ dominju] inkluża l-possibiltà ta’ reġistrazzjonijiet ta’ ismijiet ta’ qasam f’fażijiet [ta’ dominju b’mod proġressiv] biex jiġu assigurati opportunitajiet temporanji xierqa għad-detenturi ta’ drittijiet li kienu jeżistu qabel rikonoxxuti jew stabbiliti bil-liġi nazzjonali u/jew tal-Komunità u biex korpi pubbliċi jirreġistraw isimhom”.

7. In order to implement that provision, the Commission adopted Regulation No 874/2004.

7. B’applikazzjoni ta’ din id-dispożizzjoni, il-Kummissjoni adottat ir-Regolament Nru 874/2004.

B – Regulation No 874/2004

B – Ir-Regolament Nru 874/2004

8. The first three paragraphs of Article 2 of Regulation No 874/2004 provide as follows:

8. L-ewwel sat-tielet paragrafi tal-Artikolu 2 tar-Regolament Nru 874/2004 jipprovdu li :

‘An eligible party, as listed in Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 733/2002, may register one or more domain names under .eu TLD.

“Parti eliġibbli, kif elenkata fl-Artikolu 4(2)(b) tar-Regolament (KE) Nru 733/2002, tista’ tirreġistra isem wieħed jew aktar ta’ dominju taħt l-.eu TLD.

Without prejudice to Chapter IV, a specific domain name shall be allocated for use to the eligible party whose request has been received first by the Registry in the technically correct manner and in accordance with this Regulation. For the purposes of this Regulation, this criterion of first receipt shall be referred to as the “first-come-first-served” principle.

Mingħajr preġudizzju għall-Kapitolu IV, isem speċifiku ta’ dominju għandu jiġi allokat għall-użu lill-parti eliġibbli li t-talba tagħha tkun ġiet riċevuta l-ewwel mir-Reġistru b’mod teknikament korrett u skont dan ir-Regolament. Għall-finijiet ta’ dan ir-Regolament, il-kriterju ta’ l-ewwel riċeviment għandha ssir referenza għalih bħala l-prinċipju ‘min jiġi l-ewwel jinqeda l-ewwel’.

Once a domain name is registered it shall become unavailable for further registration until the registration expires without renewal, or until the domain name is revoked.’

Malli isem ta’ dominju jiġi reġistrat u ma għndux [dan ma għandux] ikun aktar disponibbli għal aktar reġistrazzjoni sakemm ir-reġistrazzjoni tiskadi mingħajr ma tiġġedded, jew sakemm l-isem tad-dominju jiġi revokat.”

9. Chapter IV of that regulation concerns phased registration. The first and second subparagraphs of Article 10(1) are worded as follows:

9. Il-Kapitolu IV ta’ dan ir-regolament, li jinkludi l-Artikoli 10 sa 14 tiegħu, jirrigwarda r-reġistrazzjoni progressiva. L-ewwel u t-tieni subparagrafi tal-Artikolu 10(1) tal-imsemmi regolament huma redatti kif ġej:

‘Holders of prior rights recognised or established by national and/or Community law and public bodies shall be eligible to apply to register domain names during a period of phased registration before general registration of .eu domain starts.

“Id-detenturi ta’ drittijiet minn qabel [preċedenti] rikonoxxuti jew stabbiliti bil-liġi nazzjonali u/jew tal-Komunità u korpi pubbliċi għandhom ikunu eliġibbli li japplikaw biex jirreġistraw l-ismijiet tad-dominju matul perjodu ta’ reġistrazzjoni f’fażijiet qabel ma tibda r-reġistrazzjoni ġenerali tad-dominju .eu.

“Prior rights” shall be understood to include, inter alia, registered national and community trademarks ...’

‘Drittijiet ta’ qabel [preċedenti]’ għandha tiftiehem li tinkludi, fost ħwejjeġ oħra, marki tal-kummerċ reġistrati nazzjonali jew tal-Komunità, […]”

10. The first three subparagraphs of Article 12(2) of Regulation No 874/2004 provide:

10. L-ewwel sat-tielet subparagrafi tal-Artikolu 12(2) tal-imsemmi regolament jipprovdu:

‘The duration of the phased registration period shall be four months. General registration of domain names shall not start prior to the completion of the phased registration period.

“It-tul ta’ żmien tar-reġistrazzjoni f’fażijiet għandu jkun ta’ erba’ xhur. Ir-reġistrazzjoni ġenerali ta’ l-ismijiet tad-dominju ma għandhiex tibda qabel it-tlestija tal-perjodu tar-reġistrazzjoni f’fażijiet.

Phased registration shall be comprised of two parts of two months each.

Ir-reġistrazzjoni f’fażijiet għandha tkun magħmula minn żewġ partijiet ta’ xahrejn kull waħda.

During the first part of phased registration, only registered national and Community trademarks, geographical indications, and the names and acronyms referred to in Article 10(3), may be applied for as domain names by holders or licensees of prior rights and by the public bodies mentioned in Article 10(1).’

Matul l-ewwel parti tar-reġistrazzjoni f’fażijiet, biss marki tal-kummerċ nazzjonali u tal-Komunità, indikazzjonijiet ġeografiċi, u l-ismijiet u l-akronimi msemmija fl-Artikolu 10(3), tista’ ssir applikazzjoni għalihom bħala ismijiet ta’ dominju minn detenturi jew persuni liċenzjati ta’ drittijiet ta’ qabel u mill-korpi pubbliċi msemmija fl-Artikolu 10(1).”

11. Article 21(1) of the Regulation is headed ‘[s]peculative and abusive registrations’ and provides as follows:

11. L-ewwel subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 21 tar-Regolament Nru 874/2004, intitolat “Reġistrazzjonijiet spekulattivi u abużivi”, jipprovdi:

‘A registered domain name shall be subject to revocation, using an appropriate extra-judicial or judicial procedure, where that name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and/or Community law, such as the rights mentioned in Article 10(1), and where it:

“Isem reġistrat ta’ dominju għandu ikun suġġett għar-revoka, bl-użu ta’ proċedura xierqa extra-ġudizzjarja jew ġudizzjarja, fejn dak l-isem ikun identiku jew simili b’tali mod li joħloq konfużjoni għal isem li fir-rigward tiegħu ikun rikonoxxut dritt jew stabbilit b’liġi nazzjonali u/jew tal-Komunità, bħad-drittijiet imsemmija fl-Artikolu 10(1), u fejn dan:

(a) has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or

a) ikun ġie reġistrat mid-detentur tiegħu mingħajr drittijiet jew interess leġittimu fl-isem; jew

(b) has been registered or is being used in bad faith.’

b) ikun ġie reġistrat jew ikun qed jintuża b’finijiet ħżiena.”

C – Directive 89/104

C – Id-Direttiva 89/104

12. Article 5(1) of Directive 89/104, which is headed ‘[r]ights conferred by a trade mark’, provides inter alia as follows:

12. L-Artikolu 5(1) tad-Direttiva 89/104, intitolat “Drittijiet mogħtija minn trade mark” jipprovdi, b’mod partikolari:

‘The registered trade mark shall confer on the proprietor exclusive rights therein. The proprietor shall be entitled to prevent all third parties not having his consent from using in the course of trade:

“1. It-trade mark reġistrata għandha tagħti l-proprjetarju drittijiet esklussivi fuqha. Il-proprjetarju għandu jkun intitolat li jimpedixxi terzi persuni kollha li ma għandhomx il-kunsens tiegħu milli jużaw matul il-kummerċ:

(a) any sign which is identical with the trade mark in relation to goods or services which are identical with those for which the trade mark is registered;

(a) kwalunkwe sinjal li hu identiku mat-trade mark fejn għandhom x’jaqsmu merkanzija jew servizzi li huma identiċi għal dawk li t-trade mark hi reġistrata;

(b) any sign where, because of its identity with, or similarity to, the trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade mark and the sign, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, which includes the likelihood of association between the sign and the trade mark.’

(b) kwalunkwe sinjal li, minħabba l-identità ma’, jew li jixbaħ it-trade mark u l-identità jew xebħ ta’ l-merkanzija jew is-servizzi koperti mit-trade mark u s-sinjal, teżisti l-possibbiltà ta’ konfużjoni da parti tal-pubbliku, li tinkludi l-possibbiltà ta’ assoċjazzjoni bejn is-sinjal u t-trade mark.”

13. Article 8 of that directive, which is headed ‘[l]icensing’, provides as follows:

13. L-Artikolu 8 ta’ din id-direttiva intitolat “Liċenzjar”, jipprovdi

‘(1) A trade mark may be licensed for some or all of the goods or services for which it is registered and for the whole or part of the Member State concerned. A license may be exclusive or non-exclusive.

“1. Trade mark tista’ tkun liċenzjata għal ftit jew għall-merkanzija jew is-servizzi kollha li għalihom hi reġistrata u għal kollu jew parti mill-Istat Membru konċernat. Liċenzja tista’ tkun esklużiva jew mhux esklużiva.

(2) The proprietor of a trade mark may invoke the rights conferred by that trade mark against a licensee who contravenes any provision in his licensing contract with regard to its duration, the form covered by the registration in which the trade mark may be used, the scope of the goods or services for which the licence is granted, the territory in which the trade mark may be affixed, or the quality of the goods manufactured or of the services provided by the licensee.’

2. Il-proprjetarju ta’ trade mark jista’ jinvoka d-drittijiet mogħtija minn dik it-trade mark kontra liċenzjat li jikser kwalunkwe dispożizzjoni fil-kuntratt tal-liċenzja tiegħu dwar it-tul tagħha [,] l-formola koperta mir-reġistrazzjoni li fuqha tista’ tintuża t-trade mark, l-iskop ta’ l-merkanzija jew servizzi [in-natura tal-prodotti jew tas-servizzi] li għalihom il-liċenzja hi maħruġa, it-territorju fejn it-trade mark tista’ titwaħħal, jew il-kwalità tal-merkanzija manifatturati jew tas-servizzi provduti minn min ingħata l-liċenzja.”

III – Facts, main proceedings and questions referred

III – Il-fatti, il-proċeduri fil-kawża prinċipali u d-domandi preliminari

14. Pie Optiek is a Belgian company selling contact lenses, spectacles and other optical products through the internet. It owns a Benelux figurative mark, consisting of the word sign ‘Lensworld’, filed on 8 December 2005 and registered on 4 January 2006 for goods and services in classes 5, 9 and 44 as defined in the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the purposes of the Registration of Marks. It operates the website www.lensworld.be.

14. Pie Optiek hija kumpannija Belġjana li topera fis-settur tal-bejgħ bl-internet ta’ lentijiet tal-kuntatt, ta’ nuċċalijiet u prodotti oħra għall-għajnejn. Hija l-proprjetarja tat-trademark figurattiva Benelux li tinkludi s-sinjal verbali “Lensworld”, ippreżentata fit-8 ta’ Diċembru 2005 u reġistrata fl-4 ta’ Jannar 2006, għal prodotti u servizzi li jaqgħu fil-klassijiet 5, 9 u 44 fis-sens tal-Ftehim ta’ Nice dwar il-klassifikazzjoni internazzjonali ta’ prodotti u servizzi għall-finijiet tar-reġistrazzjoni ta’ trade marks, tal-15 ta’ Ġunju 1957. Hija topera s-sit internet www.lensworld.be.

15. Bureau Gevers is a Belgian company operating as an intellectual property consultancy.

15. Bureau Gevers hija kumpannija Belġjana li topera fil-konsulenza ta’ proprjetà intellettwali.

16. Walsh Optical is a United States company registered in New Jersey, also active in the sale of contact lenses, spectacles and related items through the internet. Walsh Optical has operated the website www.lensworld.com since 1998 and, in addition, owned the Benelux trade mark ‘Lensworld’ filed on 20 October 2005 and registered on 26 October 2005 for goods and services in class 35. That trade mark was removed from the register on 30 October 2006.

16. Il-kumpannija Amerikana Walsh Optical Inc. li għandha s-sede tagħha f’New Jersey (iktar ’il quddiem “Walsh Optical”) hija wkoll attiva fil-bejgħ bl-internet ta’ lentijiet tal-kuntatt u prodotti oħra tal-vista. Din ilha topera s-sit internet www.lensworld.com sa mill-1998 u kienet proprjetarja tat-trade mark Benelux “Lensworld”, ippreżentata fl-20 ta’ Ottubru 2005 u reġistrata fis-26 ta’ Ottubru 2005 għal prodotti u servizzi li jaqgħu fil-klassi 35. Din it-trademark tħassret fit-30 ta’ Ottubru 2006.

17. On 18 November 2005, Walsh Optical entered into a Licence Agreement (‘the Agreement’) with Bureau Gevers. According to clause 1 of that agreement, its purpose is to enable the licensee to obtain a domain name registration in its name but on behalf of the licensor, that is Walsh Optical, to define the rights and obligations of each party during the lifetime of the licence agreement, and to organise the procedure under which the licensee is to return the .eu domain name(s) to the licensor or to any nominee of the licensor. Under clause 3, the licensor is to pay the licensee’s fees. Clause 4 of the Agreement states that the licensee will charge the licensor for its services. Pursuant to clause 5 of the Agreement, the licensee is to use reasonable efforts to file .eu application(s) and obtain a .eu registration for the domain name(s).

17. Fit-18 ta’ Novembru 2005, Walsh Optical iffirmat kuntratt intitolat “Licence Agreement” (“kuntratt ta’ liċenzjar”, iktar ’il quddiem il-“kuntratt”) ma’ Bureau Gevers. Skont il-Klawżola 1 tal-kuntratt, l-uniċi għanijiet tiegħu huma biex jippermetti lill-persuna liċenzjata biex tirreġistra isem ta’ dominju f’isimha iżda fl-interess tal-konċedent tal-liċenzja (jiġifieri Walsh Optical), biex jiddefinixxi d-drittijiet u l-obbligi ta’ kull parti matul dan l-istess kuntratt, kif ukoll biex jorganizza l-proċeduri li bihom il-persuna liċenzjata kellha tittrasferixxi l-isem jew l-ismijiet ta’ dominju .eu lill-konċedent tal-liċenzja jew lil persuna indikata minn din tal-aħħar. Skont il-Klawżola 3 tal-kuntratt, il-konċedent tal-liċenzja jobbliga ruħu li jħallas l-ispejjeż tal-persuna liċenzjata. Fil-Klawżola 4 tal-kuntratt, li fiha d-drittijiet tal-persuna liċenzjata, hemm ippreċiżat li din għandha toħroġ fattura għas-servizzi tagħha lill-konċedent tal-liċenzja. Skont il-Klawżola 5 tal-kuntratt, il-persuna liċenzjata għandha tagħmel sforzi raġonevoli biex tippreżenta applikazzjoni .eu waħda jew iktar u tikseb reġistrazzjoni .eu għal isem ta’ dominju wieħed jew iktar.

18. It is apparent from the submissions made by EURid that the first part of phased registration under Chapter IV of Regulation No 874/2004 started on 7 December 2005. On the same day, Bureau Gevers filed, in its own name but on behalf of Walsh Optical, an application with EURid for registration of the domain name ‘lensworld.eu’. That domain name was allocated to Bureau Gevers on 10 July 2006. In the meantime, on 17 January 2006, Pie Optiek had also sought registration of the domain name ‘lensworld.eu’. Registration was refused on the ground that Bureau Gevers’ application took precedence.

18. Mill-osservazzjonijiet ippreżentati minn EURid jirriżulta li l-ewwel fażi tar-reġistrazzjoni progressiva provduta fil-Kapitolu IV tar-Regolament Nru 874/2004 bdiet fis-7 ta’ Diċembru 2005. F’din l-istess ġurnata, Bureau Gevers ippreżentat lill-EURid talba għar-reġistrazzjoni tal-isem ta’ dominju “lensworld.eu” f’isimha proprju iżda fl-interess ta’ Walsh Optical. Dan l-isem ta’ dominju ġie attribwit lil Bureau Gevers fl-10 ta’ Lulju 2006. Fis-17 ta’ Jannar 2006, Pie Optiek ukoll talbet ir-reġistrazzjoni tal-isem ta’ dominju “lensworld.eu”, liema talba ġiet miċħuda minħabba l-preċedenza tat-talba ta’ Bureau Gevers.

19. Pie Optiek’s application to the Arbitration Court of the Czech Republic, the body responsible for resolving disputes relating to .eu domain names, to have the ‘lensworld.eu’ domain name transferred to it was dismissed on 12 March 2007. On 13 April 2007, Pie Optiek brought proceedings against Bureau Gevers before the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Court of First Instance, Brussels). On 8 May 2007, EURid intervened in those proceedings. The action was dismissed by judgment of 14 December 2007. The appeal before the referring court challenges that judgment at first instance.

19. It-talba li tressqet minn Pie Optiek quddiem il-Cour d’arbitrage tar-Repubblika Ċeka, li huwa organu inkarigat biex isolvi kontroversji dwar ismijiet ta’ dominju .eu b’mod extra-ġudizzjarju, sabiex tikkontesta l-attribuzzjoni tal-imsemmi isem ta’ dominju lil Bureau Gevers, ġiet miċħuda. Fit-13 ta’ April 2007 Pie Optiek ħarrket lil Bureau Gevers quddiem it-Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles. Fit-8 ta’ Mejju 2007 EURid intervjena f’din il-kawża. Permezz ta’ deċiżjoni tal-14 ta’ Diċembru 2007, dan ir-rikors ġie miċħud. L-appell ippreżentat quddiem il-qorti tar-rinviju huwa dirett kontra din is-sentenza.

20. The referring court is uncertain how the words ‘licensees of prior rights’ in the third subparagraph of Article 12(2) of Regulation No 874/2004 and the words ‘rights or legitimate interest’ in Article 21(1)(a) of that regulation must be interpreted. For that reason, it has stayed the proceedings and referred the following questions to the Court of Justice:

20. Il-qorti tar-rinviju għandha dubji dwar kif għandhom jiġu interpretati l-kunċetti ta’ “liċenzjati ta’ drittijiet ta’ qabel [preċedenti]” fit-tielet subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 21(2) tar-Regolament Nru 874/2004 u ta’ “drittijiet jew interess leġittimu” fl-Artikolu 21(1)(a) ta’ dan l-istess regolament. Għal din ir-raġuni, din iddeċidiet li tissospendi l-proċeduri u li tagħmel lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja d-domandi preliminari li ġejjin:

(1) Must Article 12(2) of Regulation No 874/2004 be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation where the prior right concerned is a trade mark right, the words ‘licensees of prior rights’ may refer to a person who has been authorised by the proprietor of the trade mark solely to register, in his own name but on behalf of the licensor, a domain name identical or similar to the trade mark, but without being authorised to put the trade mark to other uses or to use the sign as a trade mark – for example, for the purpose of marketing of goods or services under the trade mark?

1) L-Artikolu 12(2) tar-Regolament Nru 874/2004 għandu jiġi interpretat fis-sens li, f’sitwazzjoni fejn id-dritt preċedenti kkonċernat huwa dritt ta’ trade mark, il-kelmiet ‘liċenzati ta’ drittijiet ta’ qabel [preċedenti]’ jistgħu jkopru persuna li kienet awtorizzata biss, mill-proprjetarju tat-trade mark, sabiex tirreġistra, f’ismha propju iżda għan-nom tal-persuna li tikkonċedi l-liċenzja, isem ta’ dominju identiku jew li jixxiebah mat-trade mark, mingħajr madankollu ma ġiet awtorizzata tagħmel użi oħrajn mit-trade mark jew użu tas-sinjal bħala trade mark, bħal pereżempju, sabiex tikkummerċjalizza prodotti jew servizzi taħt it-trade mark?

(2) If that question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 21(1)(a) of Regulation No 874/2004 be interpreted as meaning that ‘rights or legitimate interest’ exist even if the ‘licensee of prior rights’ has obtained registration of the .eu domain name in his own name but on behalf of the proprietor of the trade mark where the latter is not eligible in accordance with Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 733/2002?

2) Fil-każ ta’ risposta pożittiva għal din id-domanda, l-Artikolu 21(1)(a) tar-Regolament Nru 874/2004 għandu jiġi interpretat fis-sens li ‘drittijiet jew interess leġittimu’ jeżistu anki jekk il-‘liċenzat ta’ drittijiet ta’ qabel [preċedenti]’ irreġistra l-isem ta’ dominju .eu f’ismu iżda għan-nom tal-proprjetarju tat-trade mark meta dan tal-aħħar ma huwiex eliġibbli skont l-Artikolu 4(2)(b) tar-Regolament (KE) Nru 733/2002?

IV – Procedure before the Court

IV – Proċeduri quddiem il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja

21. The order for reference of 29 June 2011 was lodged at the Court Registry on 15 July 2011.

21. Id-deċiżjoni tar-rinviju, datata d-29 ta’ Ġunju 2011, waslet fir-Reġistru tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja fil-15 ta’ Lulju 2011.

22. Written observations were submitted by the parties to the main proceedings, EURid and the European Commission within the period laid down in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

22. Il-partijiet fil-kawża prinċipali, EURid, kif ukoll il-Kummissjoni Ewropea, ppreżentaw osservazzjonijiet bil-miktub fiż-żmien impost mill-Artikolu 23 tal-Istatut tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja tal-Unjoni Ewropea.

23. Representatives of the parties to the main proceedings, EURid and the Commission presented oral submissions at the hearing on 21 March 2012.

23. Fis-seduta tal-21 ta’ Marzu 2012, ir-rappreżentanti tal-partijiet fil-kawża prinċipali, ta’ EURid u tal-Kummissjoni, dehru sabiex jippreżentaw l-osservazzjonijiet tagħhom.

V – Main arguments of the parties

V – Argumenti prinċipali tal-partijiet

24. To the extent that they are relevant, I shall refer to the arguments of the parties in the course of my observations.

24. Safejn dawn ikunu rilevanti, jiena sejjer neżaminahom iktar ’il quddiem.

VI – Legal appraisal

VI – Analiżi

A – Introductory observations

A – Rimarki preliminari

25. On 7 December 2005, registration opened for internet domain names under the .eu TLD. The introduction of those domain names can be traced back to the eEurope 2002 Action Plan of the European Union (6) which, under the heading ‘[a]ccelerating e-commerce’, set out the objective of ‘[establishing] a .eu top level domain name’. The aim underlying the creation of this country code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) was to give the European Union’s internal market greater visibility in the virtual market place based on the internet and to encourage electronic commerce. Use of that domain was intended to allow the organisations, undertakings and natural persons registered to establish a clear link with the European Union, the associated legal framework and the European market place.

25. Is-7 ta’ Diċembru 2005 hija d-data ta’ bidu tar-reġistrazzjoni tal-ismijiet ta’ dominju tal-ogħla livell .eu. L-adozzjoni ta’ dawn l-ismijiet ta’ dominju hija bbażata fuq il-pjan ta’ azzjoni “eEurope 2002” tal-Unjoni Ewropea (6), li taħt il-punt “Żieda tal-kummerċ elettroniku” iddefinixxa “l-adozzjoni ta’ .eu bħala d-dominju tal-ogħla livell”. Il-ħolqien ta’ dawn id-dominji tal-ogħla livell speċifiċi għall-pajjiżi (li ġie miftiehem li jissejħu l-“country-code Top-level-Domain”, imqassar  ccTLD) kien intiż li jagħmel lis-suq intern tal-Unjoni iktar viżibbli fis-suq virtwali tal-internet u jżid il-kummerċ elettroniku. L-użu ta’ dawn id-dominji kellu l-għan li juri b’mod iktar ċar ir-rabtiet ta’ organizzazzjonijiet reġistrati, ta’ impriżi u ta’ persuni naturali mal-Unjoni, il-qafas ġuridiku tiegħu u s-suq Ewropew.

26. The European Union established a substantial legal framework for the introduction of that new European TLD. Whereas the global system of domain names originally developed for the most part as a predominantly technical phenomenon without any detailed regulatory scheme for registration and use, this was remedied by the European Union on the introduction of .eu domain names essentially by the adoption of two legal instruments. In addition to provisions on technical issues, the framework regulation (Regulation No 733/2002) and Regulation No 874/2004 adopted in implementation thereof contain, in particular, a set of rules relating to the law on trade marks.

26. Sabiex tadotta dawn l-ismijiet ta’ dominju Ewropej ġodda tal-ogħla livell, l-Unjoni ħolqot qafas ġuridiku ta’ portata wiesgħa. Għalkemm, fil-bidu, is-sistema mondjali tal-ismijiet ta’ dominju żviluppat ruħha, il-biċċa l-kbira, bħala fenomenu prinċipalment tekniku, mingħajr ma kienu definiti b’mod preċiż il-kundizzjonijiet qafas ta’ reġistrazzjoni u ta’ użu, sussegwentement l-Unjoni għamlet tajjeb għal dan billi adottat l-ismijiet ta’ dominju .eu prinċipalment permezz ta’ żewġ strumenti legali. Ir-Regolament qafas Nru 733/2002 u r-Regolament Nru 874/2004 li jimplementa r-regolament qafas jinkludu mhux biss dispożizzjonijiet dwar kwistjonijiet tekniċi iżda wkoll corpus ta’ regoli fil-qasam tad-dritt tat-trade marks.

27. First, provision was made for the introduction of .eu domain names to proceed by means of a phased registration procedure (a ‘Sunrise Period’), (7) in which holders of signs were granted priority access to the .eu domain names corresponding to those signs. During the two months of the first part of the Sunrise Period (7 December 2005 to 6 February 2006), holders of national and Community trade marks, geographical indications and designations of origin could apply to register domains. Under the second subparagraph of Article 12(2) of Regulation No 874/2004, the right to participate was extended to licensees. On the basis of that provision, Bureau Gevers claims an entitlement to register the domain name ‘lensworld.eu’. During the second part of the Sunrise Period, domain names based on other rights that are protected under national law, such as business identifiers, company names, distinctive titles of protected literary and artistic works, unregistered trade marks or trade names could also be applied for.

27. Minn naħa, ġie provdut li l-adozzjoni tal-ismijiet ta’ dominju .eu kellha ssir fil-kuntest ta’ proċedura progressiva (“Sunrise Period”) (7), li fiha l-proprjetarji ta’ drittijiet preċedenti kellhom prijorità fl-għoti tal-ismijiet ta’ dominju .eu li jikkorrispondu għas-sinjali li fuqhom dawn kellhom drittijiet. Fl-ewwel fażi tas-“Sunrise Period” ta’ perijodu ta’ xahrejn (mis-7 ta’ Diċembru 2005 sas-6 ta’ Frar 2006) il-propjetarji ta’ trade marks nazzjonali u Komunitarji, ta’ indikazzjonijiet ġeografiċi u ta’ indikazzjonijiet ta’ oriġni, setgħu jressqu talbiet għar-reġistrazzjonijiet ta’ dominju. Skont it-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 12(2) tar-Regolament Nru 874/2004, dan kien japplika wkoll għall-persuni liċenzjati. Minn din id-dispożizzjoni Bureau Gevers tiddeduċi li hija kellha d-dritt li tirreġistra l-isem ta’ dominju “lensworld.eu”. Matul it-tieni fażi tas-“Sunrise Period” kien ukoll possibbli li jintalbu ismijiet ta’ dominju li kienu bbażati fuq drittijiet oħra protetti mid-dritt nazzjonali, bħal, pereżempju, id-denominazzjonijiet kummerċjali, l-ismijiet ta’ kumpanniji, it-titoli karatteristiċi ta’ xogħolijiet litterarji jew artistiċi protetti, it-trade marks u l-ismijiet kummerċjali li ma kinux reġistrati.

28. Second, provisions were incorporated in the rules to protect holders of prior rights and other eligible parties against the speculative and abusive registration of .eu domain names. Pie Optiek relies on those provisions in seeking to have the registration in favour of Bureau Gevers revoked. Given that Bureau Gevers filed an application for the domain name ‘lensworld.eu’ and secured its registration before Pie Optiek, the question whether, in fact, Bureau Gevers may be regarded as a ‘licensee of a prior right’ within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 12(2) of Regulation No 874/2004 is relevant for the purposes of giving judgment. If Bureau Gevers’ status as licensee were to be confirmed, EURid’s decision not to approve Pie Optiek’s application for registration would have to be considered correct. That is the issue raised by the first question which, following the order specified by the referring court, must be examined first.

28. Min-naħa l-oħra, id-dispożizzjonijiet ta’ dawn ir-regolamenti ġew adottati sabiex jipproteġu l-proprjetarji ta’ drittijiet preċedenti kif wkoll lil persuni oħra li kellhom id-dritt li jressqu talba kontra reġistrazzjonijiet spekulattivi u abbużivi ta’ ismijiet ta’ dominju .eu. Pie Optiek tibbaża ruħha wkoll fuq dawn id-dispożizzjonijiet biex tħassar ir-reġistrazzjoni fl-interess ta’ Bureau Gevers. Fid-dawl tal-fatt li Bureau Gevers talbet l-isem ta’ dominju “lensworld.eu” qabel Pie Optiek u kisbet ir-reġistrazzjoni, jidher li l-kwistjoni dwar jekk Bureau Gevers tistax effettivament titqies bħala “liċenzjata ta’ drittijiet ta’ qabel [preċedenti]” fis-sens tat-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 12(2) tar-Regolament Nru 874/2004 hija determinanti għas-soluzzjoni tal-kontroversja. Jekk il-kwalità tagħha ta’ persuna liċenzjata jkollha tiġi kkonfermata, id-deċiżjoni tal-EURid li ma taċċettax it-talba ta’ reġistrazzjoni ta’ Pie Optiek għandha titqies bħala legali. Huwa preċiżament dan is-suġġett tal-ewwel domanda preliminari li sejjer nipproċedi biex neżamina fl-ewwel lok iktar ’l isfel skont l-ordni tad-domandi.

B – The first question

1. Klassifikazzjoni bħala kuntratt ta’ servizz

1. Non-existence of a licence agreement

29. Forsi wieħed jista’ legalment jikklassifika l-kuntratt inkwistjoni pjuttost bħala kuntratt ta’ provvista ta’ servizzi. Hekk kif iddeċidiet il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja fis-sentenza Falco Privatstiftung u Rabitsch, il-kunċett ta’ “servizzi” fis-sens tat-tieni inċiż tal-Artikolu 5(1)(b) tar-Regolament Nru 44/2001 jimplika li l-parti li tipprovdihom twettaq attività speċifika inkambju għal remunerazzjoni (8) . Abbażi ta’ din id-definizzjoni, il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja ddefiniet il-kuntratti ta’ servizzi fir-rigward tal-kuntratti ta’ liċenzjar u ddeċidiet, f’dan il-kuntest, li s-suġġett taż-żewġ tipi ta’ kuntratti ma kienx jikkoinċidi (9) .

29. By its first question, the referring court seeks, in essence, to establish what is to be understood by the words ‘licensee of a prior right’ within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 12(2) of Regulation No 874/2004 where that prior right is a trade mark.

30. Fil-konklużjonijiet tiegħi mogħtija f’din il-kawża (10), ippruvajt niddefinixxi, fl-ewwel lok b’mod astratt, il-kunċett ta’ “servizzi”. F’dan ir-rigward, enfasizzajt li żewġ karatteristiċi għandhom importanza fundamentali għad-definizzjoni tal-kunċett ta’ “servizzi”. L-ewwel nett, it-tifsira komuni tal-kunċett ta’ “servizzi” teżiġi li l-persuna li tipprovdi s-servizz twettaq attività partikolari; għaldaqstant, il-provvista ta’ servizzi teżiġi ċerta attività jew aġir min-naħa tal-persuna li tipprovdi dan is-servizz. Fit-tieni lok, is-servizzi għandhom ġeneralment ikunu provduti inkambju għal remunerazzjoni.

30. On that point, it must be observed at the outset that Regulation No 874/2004 neither provides for a definition of that term nor refers to the legal systems of the Member States. The Court has consistently held that the need for uniform application of EU law and the principle of equality require that, where provisions of EU law make no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining their meaning and scope, they must normally be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the Community; that interpretation must take into account the context of the provision and the purpose of the legislation in question. (8) As the provision requiring interpretation in the present case is an implementing regulation, it should be given, if possible, an interpretation consistent with the provisions of the basic regulation. (9)

31. Fir-rigward tal-kawża prinċipali, għandu jiġi kkonstatat li Bureau Gevers obbligat ruħha kuntrattwalment, kontra remunerazzjoni, biex twettaq sforzi raġonevoli sabiex tapplika u tikseb reġistrazzjoni .eu għall-isem ta’ dominju. F’dan il-kuntest, dak li huwa sorprendenti huwa li l-kliem tal-kuntratt jirreferi espliċitament għal “servizzi” (11) . Dan kollu jagħti x’jifhem li, fil-verità, Bureau Gevers obbligat ruħha fil-konfront ta’ Walsh Optical li teżerċita negozju, jiġifieri servizz fis-sens tad-definizzjoni indikata iktar ’il fuq. Ċertament, ir-reġistrazzjoni tal-isem ta’ dominju sar f’isem Bureau Gevers. Madankollu, fid-dawl tal-fatt li Bureau Gevers ma kienet tantiċipa l-ebda użu tat-trade mark u/jew tal-isem ta’ dominju li jikkorrispondi għaliha b’mod konformi mad-destinazzjoni tagħhom, għandu jiġi kkunsidrat li dan is-servizz ġie pprovdut biss fl-interess ta’ Walsh Optical. Fid-dawl ta’ dawn il-kunsiderazzjonijiet, il-kuntratt inkwistjoni jikkorrispondi għad-definizzjoni ta’ kuntratt ta’ servizz.

31. The term ‘licensee of a prior right’ is composed of two elements. First, it involves the concept of a ‘prior right’, which, in the context of the present reference for a preliminary ruling, can be determined without any particular difficulty, especially since the second subparagraph of Article 10(1) expressly specifies the individual categories of rights. These include registered national trade marks. In light of the fact that Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg constitute a single territory for trade mark purposes, with a uniform trade mark law and trade mark office common to all three countries, (10) the Benelux mark registered in favour of Walsh Optical may, in legal terms, be regarded as a national trade mark for the purposes of that provision.

B – L-ewwel domanda

32. On the other hand, the definition of licence agreement is more difficult. This is critical to the resolution of the key issue, namely whether by means of the agreement entered into Walsh Optical granted Bureau Gevers a legally valid licence in relation to the registered mark. In that connection, it will be necessary to determine whether EU law includes a legal definition of a licence agreement. Subsequently, it will be necessary to examine whether the agreement in question corresponds to that definition.

1. Nuqqas ta’ kuntratt ta’ liċenzjar

33. As I explained in my Opinion in Falco Privatstiftung and Rabitsch , (11) although EU law on the protection of intellectual property does govern the possibility of granting licences, (12) it does not lay down provisions on the conclusion of a licence agreement. It can merely be inferred from the relevant legislation that a licence agreement is a reciprocal contract, under which, in essence, the person granting the licence confers on the licensee the right to use particular intellectual property rights and, in exchange, the licensee pays licence fees to the licensor. By granting the licence, the licensor authorises the licensee to perform an activity which, in the absence of the licence, would be an infringement of intellectual property rights. Derived from the Latin word ‘licet’, the term licence – according to its roots – means, in essence, ‘permission to use property or to exercise an activity’. In accordance with the principle of party autonomy, a restriction on the licence may be agreed contractually. Licences may be exclusive or non-exclusive or restricted in their territorial, temporal or material scope. (13)

32. Permezz tal-ewwel domanda tagħha, il-qorti tar-rinviju tixtieq tkun taf, essenzjalment, dak li għandu jiġi mifhum bil-kunċett ta’ “liċenzjati ta’ drittijiet ta’ qabel [preċedenti]” fis-sens tat-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 12(2) tar-Regolament Nru 874/2004, meta d-dritt preċedenti jkun trade mark.

34. This understanding of the nature of a licence agreement was adopted by the Court in Falco Privatstiftung and Rabitsch , in which it considered the obligation undertaken by the owner of an intellectual property right not to challenge the use of that right by his contractual partner in return for payment of remuneration to be characteristic of licence agreements. According to the Court, herein lies a fundamental distinction from a contract for the provision of services. Unlike the situation under that latter contract, the owner of an intellectual property right does not perform any service in granting a right to use that property and undertakes merely to permit the licensee to exploit that right freely. (14) On the other hand, the Court considered it immaterial whether the licensee of an intellectual property right is under any obligation to use the intellectual property right licensed. (15)

33. L-ewwel nett, għandu jiġi ppreċiżat li r-Regolament Nru 874/2004 ma fih l-ebda definizzjoni ta’ dan il-kunċett u lanqas ma jagħmel riferiment għall-ordinamenti ġuridiċi tal-Istati Membri. Skont il-ġurisprudenza kostanti tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, jirriżulta mill-eżiġenzi kemm tal-applikazzjoni uniformi tad-dritt tal-Unjoni kif ukoll mill-prinċipju ta’ trattament ugwali, li t-termini ta’ dispożizzjoni tad-dritt tal-Unjoni li ma jkun fihom ebda riferiment espliċitu għad-dritt tal-Istati Membri sabiex jiġi stabbilit is-sens u l-portata tagħha, u għandhom normalment jingħataw interpretazzjoni awtonoma u uniformi fl-Unjoni kollha li għandha tkun imfittxa bit-teħid inkunsiderazzjoni tal-kuntest tad-dispożizzjoni u l-għan segwit mil-leġiżlazzjoni inkwistjoni (12) . Peress li l-istrument ġuridiku jeżiġi interpretazzjoni, dan għandu jiġi interpretat, safejn ikun possibbli, fis-sens li jkun konformi mar-regolament bażiku (13) .

35. However, according to a more recent school of thought in the academic legal literature, a licence should not be understood as the mere tolerance of use and, thus, as a purely passive obligation on the part of the licensor in the sense of a waiver of his rights to challenge use. Instead, the proponents of this school of thought take the view that a licence also involves the grant of a positive right of use. (16) As I will demonstrate below, certain EU legislative provisions suggest that, under EU law, a licence is in fact conceived of as a genuine permission to use and not the mere tolerance thereof. The nature of a licence can be discerned from a comparative analysis of various EU legal instruments. (17)

34. Il-kunċett ta’ “liċenzjati ta’ drittijiet ta’ qabel [preċedenti]” huwa magħmul minn żewġ elementi. L-ewwel nett, jinvolvi kunċett ta’ “drittijet ta’ qabel [preċedenti]” li d-definizzjoni tiegħu ma tqajjimx problemi partikolari fil-kuntest tal-proċeduri preliminari preżenti, peress li r-regolament, fit-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 10(1) tiegħu, isemmi espliċitament id-diversi kategoriji ta’ drittijiet. Fosthom jissemmew, b’mod partikolari, it-trade marks nazzjonali reġistrati. Fid-dawl tal-fatt li l-Belġju, il-Pajjiżi l-Baxxi u l-Lussemburgu jiffurmaw spazju ġuridiku uniformi li għandu liġi ta’ trademarks uniformi u uffiċċju komuni ta’ trade marks (14), it-trade mark Benelux reġistrata fl-interess ta’ Walsh Optical tista’ ġuridikament titqies bħala trade mark nazzjonali fis-sens ta’ din id-dispożizzjoni.

36. In EU law, provisions governing licences are to be found predominantly in two regulatory contexts. First, in the framework of regulations establishing EU protection rights, licences are envisaged as a means of exploiting intellectual property rights. To date, the European Union has already established three original European protection rights of that kind, that is the Community plant variety right, the Community trade mark and the Community design, and there is a proposal for a regulation on a Community patent. As can be seen, by way of illustration, from Article 22(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, (18) the wording of the provisions on licences is drafted from the perspective of licensees. The phrase ‘against a licensee who contravenes any provision in his licensing contract with regard to its duration, the form covered by the registration in which the trade mark may be used ...’ suggests that a permission is granted to the licensee. The fact that, as a matter of EU law, a licence is conceived of as a permission to use and not a mere tolerance thereof is even more clearly expressed in the travaux préparatoires of the Community trade mark regulation and the associated guidelines issued by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market. The memorandum on the EEC trade mark (19) defines a licence as ‘a contractual agreement giving a third party the right to use a trade mark’. The guidelines on the Community trade mark regulation (20) state: ‘a mere tolerance or a unilateral consent to a third person, by the proprietor of the trade mark, to use the trade mark does not constitute a licence’. This conclusion is also confirmed by Article 4 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, (21) which provides that the protection measures established by the directive must be accorded not only to the holders of intellectual property rights but also to persons ‘authorised to use those rights’ and specifies that this includes, in particular, licensees.

35. Min-naħa l-oħra, id-definizzjoni ta’ kuntratt ta’ liċenzjar hija iktar kumplessa. Fil-fatt, minn din tiddependi r-risposta għad-domanda ċentrali fuq il-kwistjoni dwar jekk, permezz tal-kuntratt konkluż ma’ Bureau Gevers, Walsh Optical tatx liċenzja b’mod illegali li għandha bħala s-suġġett tagħha t-trademark reġistrata. F’dan il-kuntest, għandu jiġi stabbilit jekk id-dritt tal-Unjoni fihx definizzjoni legali tal-kuntratt ta’ liċenzjar. Sussegwentement, għandu jiġi eżaminat jekk il-kuntratt kontroversjali huwiex konformi ma’ din id-definizzjoni.

37. In addition, provisions governing licences are to be found in the context of competition law. For example, Commission Regulation (EC) No 772/2004 of 27 April 2004 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of technology transfer agreements (22) and the associated Commission guidelines are clearly based on the notion of a licence as a contractual right of use. Moreover, the concept of a licence can also be determined indirectly from the provisions governing compulsory licensing laid down, for example, in Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. (23) They make it clear that, as a rule, a licence constitutes the permission to use an intellectual property right in return for a periodic payment. Finally, the fact that a licence must be regarded, as a matter of EU law, not as a mere waiver of rights to challenge the unauthorised use of the intellectual property right but as according a positive right of use follows also from the provisions on the principle of exhaustion of rights.

36. Hekk kif diġà rrilevajt fil-konklużjonijiet tiegħi mogħtija fil-kawża Falco Privatstiftung u Rabitsch (15), għalkemm ir-regoli Komunitarji fil-qasam tal-protezzjoni tal-proprjetà intellettwali jirregolaw il-possibilità ta’ konċessjoni ta’ liċenzja (16), dawn ma fihomx dispożizzjonijiet fuq il-konklużjoni ta’ kuntratt ta’ liċenzjar. Mil-leġiżlazzjoni rilevanti jirriżulta biss li l-kuntratt ta’ liċenzjar huwa kuntratt sinallagmatiku li essenzjalment jikkonsisti fil-fatt li l-konċedent tal-liċenzja jagħti lill-persuni liċenzjati d-dritt li jużaw ċerti drittijiet ta’ proprjetà intellettwali, li inkambju jagħmlu ħlas lill-konċedent tal-liċenzja. Meta jagħti l-liċenzja, il-konċedent tal-liċenzja jippermetti lill-persuna liċenzjata li tagħmel ċerti affarjiet li, mingħajr l-għoti tal-liċenzja, ikunu jikkostitwixxu ksur tad-drittijiet ta’ proprjetà intellettwali. Il-liċenzja, li toriġina mill-kelma Latina “ licet ”, tfisser inizjalment “awtorizzazzjoni ta’ użu ta’ bene jew ta’ eżerċizzju ta’ negozju”. Skont il-prinċipju tal-awtonomija tal-partijiet, jista’ jsir qbil fuq limitazzjoni tal-liċenzja; din tista’ tkun esklussiva jew mhux esklussiva jew tkun limitata ġeografikament, temporalment, jew skont il-natura tal-użu tagħha (17) .

38. Whether or not, in purely doctrinal terms, the essential feature of a licence agreement is regarded, depending on the point of view taken, as a waiver of the exercise of a certain right or, instead, as the grant by the licensor of a right of use, it must be observed that the abovementioned schools of thought essentially agree on the fact that the grant of a licence accords to the licensee, ultimately, the authority to use an industrial property right (patent, trade mark or design) for a limited period or on a permanent basis and, moreover, to an extent which would otherwise fall within the scope of protection and use afforded to the holder of the intellectual property right. (24)

37. Il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja taqbel ma’ din il-perċezzjoni dwar l-elementi essenzjali ta’ kuntratt ta’ liċenzjar, peress li, fis-sentenza Falco Privatstiftung u Rabitsch, din ikkunsidrat li l-obbligu tal-proprjetarju ta’ dritt ta’ proprjetà intellettwali li jikkontestax l-użu ta’ dan id-dritt inkambju għal ħlas huwa fattur karatteristiku ta’ kuntratti ta’ liċenzjar. Skont il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, teżisti hawnhekk differenza fundamentali jekk dan il-kuntratt jitqabbel ma’ kuntratt ta’ servizz. Għall-kuntrarju għal dan it-tip ta’ kuntratt, meta jikkonċedi l-użu ta’ dritt ta’ proprjetà intellettwali, il-propjetarju tiegħu ma jwettaq l-ebda servizz u jobbliga ruħu biss li jħalli lill-parti l-oħra tal-kuntratt libera li tuża l-imsemmi dritt (18) . Min-naħa l-oħra, il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja kkunsidrat li ma kienx rilevanti l-fatt dwar jekk il-persuna liċenzjata tkunx obbligata li tuża l-imsemmi dritt konċess ta’ proprjetà intellettwali jew le (19) .

39. Naturally, that must be understood to mean only the use of that intellectual property right in accordance with its purpose , (25) that is with a view to the marketing of certain goods or services, as otherwise, from a commercial perspective, grant of the licence would be pointless. The legal grant of a right in intangible property does not constitute an end in itself but, as a rule, is made with a view to the commercial exploitation thereof by the grantee. (26)

38. Madankollu, skont duttrina ġdida difiża fil-letteratura, il-liċenzjar ma jistax jinftiehem bħala sempliċi tolleranza tal-użu u, għaldaqstant, bħala obbligu purament passiv tal-konċedent tal-liċenzja, fis-sens ta’ rinunzja għall-eżerċizzju tad-drittijiet ta’ oppożizzjoni tiegħu. Min-naħa l-oħra, id-difensuri ta’ din id-duttrina jikkunsidraw li l-liċenzja tagħti wkoll dritt pożittiv ta’ użu (20) . Hekk kif sejjer nirrileva iktar ’il quddiem, minn ċerti strumenti ġuridiċi tal-Unjoni jista’ jiġi dedott li fid-dritt tal-Unjoni l-liċenzja hija effettivament mifhuma bħala awtorizzazzjoni reali tal-użu u mhux bħala sempliċi tolleranza. Il-parametri tal-kunċett ta’ liċenzja jistgħu jiġu definiti permezz ta’ analiżi komparattiva ta’ diversi strumenti ġuridiċi tal-Unjoni (21) .

40. That is clearly the presumption on which the EU legislature also operates, as may be inferred from the wording of Article 22 of Regulation No 40/94 and Article 8 of Directive 89/104, which provide that a trade mark may be licensed for the goods or services for which it is registered . In each case, reference is made to two categories of product (goods and services) which, typically, are intended to be marketed. Consequently, the provisions of trade mark law specified must be understood as meaning that the grant of a licence authorises the licensee to affix the mark to certain of the products it offers in the course of trade. Therefore, it must be presumed that the licensee will, as a rule, use the relevant intellectual property right on a commercial basis.

39. Dan jeżisti, b’mod partikolari, f’żewġ oqsma tad-dritt tal-Unjoni tar-regoli fil-qasam tal-liċenzjar. Minn naħa, il-liċenzjar jitqies bħala forma ta’ użu tad-drittijiet ta’ proprjetà intellettwali fil-kuntest tar-regolamenti dwar il-protezzjoni mogħtija mill-Unjoni lill-proprjetà intellettwali. Preċedentement, permezz tad-dritt Komunitarju ta’ protezzjoni ta’ varjetajiet ġodda ta’ pjanti, ir-regolament fuq it-trade mark u permezz tad-disinni jew il-mudelli Komunitarji, l-Unjoni kienet diġà ħolqot tliet sistemi oriġinali ta’ protezzjoni Ewropea ta’ dan it-tip u ġie ppreżentat abbozz ta’ regolament għal privattiva Komunitarja. Hekk kif juri, bħala eżempju, l-Artikolu 22(2) tar-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KE) Nru 207/2009, tas-26 ta’ Frar 2009, dwar it-trade mark Komunitarja (22), ir-redazzjoni tad-dispożizzjonijiet fil-qasam tal-liċenzjar hija fformulata mill-perspettiva tal-persuna liċenzjata. L-ordni tal-kliem “kontra liċenzjat li jikser xi dispożizzjoni tal-kuntratt tal-liċenzja fir-rigward ta’: (a) it-tul taż-żmien; (b) il-forma koperta mir-reġistrazzjoni taħt liema t-trademark tista’ tiġi utilizzata […]” tippermetti li jiġi konkluż li tkun ingħatat awtorizzazzjoni lill-persuna liċenzjata. Il-fatt li, fid-dritt tal-Unjoni, il-liċenzjar huwa mifhum bħala awtorizzazzjoni tal-użu u mhux bħala sempliċi tolleranza jidher b’mod iktar ċar fid-duttrina dwar ir-regolament fuq it-trade mark Komunitarja, kif ukoll fid-direttivi tal-Uffiċċju għall-Armonizzazzjoni fis-Suq Intern dwaru. B’hekk, fil-memorandum fuq it-trade mark Komunitarja (23), il-liċenzjar huwa definit bħala “kuntratt li fih trade mark tingħata lil terza persuna sabiex tiġi użata” [traduzzjoni mhux uffiċjali]. Finalment, fid-direttivi relattivi għar-regolament dwar it-trade mark Komunitarja (24), jissemma li “sempliċi tolleranza jew kunsens mogħti unilateralment lil terza persuna mill-proprjetarju tat-trademark 5 […] ma jikkostitwixxix liċenzja” [traduzzjoni mhux uffiċjali]. Dan l-approċċ huwa kkonfermat wkoll mill-Artikolu 4 tad-Direttiva 2004/48/KE, tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill, tad-29 ta’ April 2004, fuq l-infurzar tad-drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali (25), li jipprovdi li mill-istrumenti ta’ protezzjoni maħluqa mid-direttiva, ma għandhomx jibbenefikaw biss il-proprjetarji ta’ drittijiet iżda wkoll il-“persuni l-oħra kollha awtorizzati [li jużaw dawn id-drittijiet]” u jiċċita bħala tali, b’mod partikolari, il-persuni liċenzjati.

41. If one continues to view the matter from a commercial perspective, the fact cannot be ignored that the licensor, too, is likely to have an interest in the exploitation of the mark through the use thereof in the course of trade. The licensor does not only receive remuneration for the permission to use, which in itself constitutes a considerable economic incentive. Depending on the terms of the agreement, the licensor may be entitled to a licence fee or even to a share of the profit achieved by the licensee. (27) In addition, use of the trade mark by the licensee ensures that the distinctive character of the mark is maintained and that the mark can continue to fulfil its functions (to be considered in detail below). (28)

40. Minn naħa jeżistu wkoll regolamenti fuq il-liċenzjar fil-kuntest tad-dritt tal-kompetizzjoni. Għalhekk, pereżempju, huwa ċar li r-Regolament tal-Kummissjoni (KE) Nru 772/2004, tas-27 ta’ April 2004, fuq l-applikazzjoni tal-Artikolu 81(3) tat-Trattat għall-kategoriji ta’ ftehim dwar it-trasferiment ta’ teknoloġija (26) kif ukoll il-linji gwida ppubblikati mill-Kummissjoni f’dan ir-rigward, huma bbażati fuq il-kunċett ta’ liċenzjar bħala dritt kuntrattwali ta’ użu. Barra minn hekk, il-kunċett ta’ liċenzjar jista’ jiġi dedott indirettament mir-regoli relattivi għall-liċenzji obbligatorji, bħal, pereżempju, dawk definiti fid-Direttiva 98/44/KE, tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill, tas-6 ta’ Lulju 1998, dwar il-protezzjoni legali tal-invenzjonijiet bijoteknoloġiċi (27) . Dawn juru b’mod ċar li, bħala regola ġenerali, l-liċenzjar jikkostitwixxi awtorizzazzjoni ta’ użu ta’ dritt ta’ proprjetà intellettwali inkambju għal rimunerazzjoni. Fl-aħħar mill-aħħar, il-fatt li fid-dritt tal-Unjoni l-liċenzjar għandu jiġi kkunsidrat mhux sempliċement bħala rinunzja għall-eżerċizzju ta’ drittijiet ta’ oppożizzjoni bbażati fuq id-dritt ta’ proprjetà intellettwali iżda tabilħaqq dritt pożittiv ta’ użu, jirriżulta wkoll mir-regoli relattivi għall-prinċipju ta’ eżawriment ta’ rimedji.

42. That aspect is particularly relevant where, for whatever reason, the holder of the intellectual property right is not in a position to exploit the mark himself, which, having regard to the complexity of commercial life today, is by no means uncommon. In an economic system in which, as a result of the increasing interconnection and internationalisation of the economy, it has become difficult single-handedly and comprehensively to exploit commercially a monopoly in a particular economic sector, and, leaving aside the necessity for further technological developments, (29) the exploitation of intangible property is no longer undertaken solely and directly by the holder of the intellectual property right but involves other economic actors, which is intended to ensure, all in all, exploitation to the optimum effect. The grant of licences allows different exploitation opportunities to be explored and new product markets to be conquered. As a result of the marketing that the licensee pursues in his own interests in order to attract customers, the reputation of the mark will increase which, ultimately, is also to the benefit of the licensor. (30) Consequently, a licence facilitates the best possible exploitation of intellectual property rights. For that reason above all, it is, in addition to the assignment and pledge, now the most common means by which those rights are put to commercial use. Thus, from the licensor’s perspective also, there are good reasons why a licence will typically be granted with a view to future use. (31)

41. Indipendentement mill-kwistjoni dwar jekk, minn perspettiva dogmatika, il-karatteristika prinċipali ta’ kuntratt ta’ liċenzjar hijiex, skont it-teżi adottata, jew ir-rinunzja għall-eżerċizzju ta’ dritt jew pjuttost l-għoti mill-konċedent ta’ liċenzja ta’ awtorizzazzjoni ta’ użu, għandu jiġi kkunsidrat li l-opinjonijiet esposti iktar ’il quddiem fil-biċċa l-kbira tagħhom jikkoinċidu fis-sens li, bl-għoti ta’ liċenzjar, il-persuna liċenzjata tispiċċa biex, fl-aħħar mill-aħħar, tingħata s-setgħa li tuża, temporanjament jew b’mod permanenti, dritt kummerċjali ta’ proprjetà intellettwali (privattivi, trade marks, mudelli) u dan, b’tali mod li, fin-nuqqas tiegħu, l-użu jagħti lok għal ksur tad-dritt ta’ projbizzjoni u ta’ użu tal-propjetarju tad-dritt ta’ proprjetà intellettwali  (28) .

43. Naturally, the notion of the ‘use of a right in accordance with its purpose’, as mentioned above, can be interpreted differently depending on the type of intellectual property right at issue. Intellectual property rights differ in the scope of protection they provide. In that connection, too, a legal perspective appears helpful in order to determine whether an entitlement to make use of an intellectual property right is inherent in a licence agreement. In addition to the criteria established by legislation which apply in relation to the licensing of intellectual property rights and which set out the characteristics of the intellectual property right at issue, the crucial factor is what has been contractually agreed between the parties in a particular case. From that agreement, entered into on the basis of the freedom of contract, conclusions can ultimately be drawn regarding the scope of the rights conferred. (32)

42. Naturalment, hawnhekk wieħed qiegħed jikkontempla biss użu konformi mad-destinazzjoni tad-dritt ta’ proprjetà intellettwali (29), u dan bil-għan ta’ kummerċjalizzazzjoni ta’ ċerti prodotti jew servizzi għaliex, altrimenti, l-għoti ta’ liċenzja ma jkollu l-ebda sinjifikat mill-perspettiva ekonomika. L-għoti ġuridiku ta’ dritt għal beni intanġibbli ma huwiex għan fih innifsu, iżda ġeneralment isir bil-għan li minnu jsir użu ekonomiku mill-persuna li tibbenefika minnu (30) .

44. In the case in the main proceedings, Bureau Gevers and Walsh Optical entered into a contract in relation to a trade mark which they entitled ‘licence agreement’. However, the description chosen by the parties is of itself of little value in determining how this agreement should be categorised as a matter of law. (33) Not only is it possible that the category chosen by the parties may prove to be incorrect as a matter of law, it is also necessary to ensure that the parties do not, as a result of a possibly intentional choice of terminology, evade the legal consequences provided for under EU law in the case of a licence agreement. At issue, in the present case, is the right to priority registration of a domain name during a special advance registration period (Sunrise Period). In those circumstances, I consider an objective approach appropriate, according to which it is necessary, in essence, to examine whether the aim of that agreement was to allow Bureau Gevers to use the mark concerned in accordance with its purpose.

43. Anki l-leġiżlatur tal-Unjoni jibbaża ruħu manifestament fuq dawn il-premessi hekk kif dan kien diġà jidher, b’mod indirett, mill-kliem tal-Artikolu 22 tar-Regolament Nru 40/94 u tal-Artikolu 8 tad-Direttiva 89/104 li jipprovdu li t-trade mark tista’ tkun is-suġġett ta’ liċenzji għall-prodotti jew għas-servizzi li fir-rigward tagħhom hija ġiet reġistrata . Hawnhekk isir riferiment għal żewġ tipi ta’ kategoriji ta’ prodotti (il-merkanzija u s-servizzi) li l-karatteristika tagħhom hija li dawn huma intiżi għall-kummerċjalizzazzjoni. Għalhekk, dawn id-dispożizzjonijiet tad-dritt tat-trade marks għandhom jiġu interpretati fis-sens li wara l-għoti ta’ liċenzja l-persuna liċenzjata hija awtorizzata li tannetti t-trade mark ma’ ċerti prodotti li din tikkummerċjalizza. Għaldaqstant, għandu jiġi kkunsidrat li, bħala regola ġenerali, il-persuna liċenzjata sejra tuża d-dritt ta’ proprjetà intellettwali kkonċernat għal finijiet kummerċjali.

45. With that in mind, it is necessary briefly to recall the function of a trade mark in the course of trade. Only then can a conclusion be drawn as to whether use in accordance with the trade mark’s purpose, that is its function, was agreed. The Court’s extensive case-law on Directive 89/104 and Regulation No 40/94 provides guidance in this regard.

44. Jekk wieħed jibqa’ juża approċċ ekonomiku, ma għandux jiġi minsi li, bħala regola ġenerali, il-konċedent tal-liċenzja għandu interess li t-trade mark tintuża fil-kummerċ. Fil-fatt, il-konċedent tal-liċenzja ma huwiex imħallas biss għat-trasferiment tad-dritt, li diġà jikkostitwixxi inċentiva ekonomika sinjifikanti għalih. Skont il-kuntratt konkluż, dan jista’ jirċievi ħlas jew saħansitra parteċipazzjoni fil-profitti riċevuti mill-persuna liċenzjata (31) . Barra minn hekk, hekk kif jiena sejjer nargumenta iktar ’il quddiem, l-użu tat-trade mark mill-persuna liċenzjata jikkontribwixxi biex jiggarantixxi li din tibqa’ tippreserva n-natura distintiva tagħha u li din tkun tista’ tibqa’ taqdi l-funzjonijiet tagħha fil-futur (32) .

46. As the Court has stated on numerous occasions, a trade mark fulfils several functions. Its essential function is primarily to guarantee to consumers the origin of the goods or services. (34) Consequently, a trade mark constitutes a means of identification and individualisation in the context of trade. However, that function – as indicator of origin – has several different facets which should not be disregarded when determining the importance of the trade mark in commerce.

45. Dan l-aspett huwa partikolarment rilevanti fil-każijiet fejn, tkun xi tkun ir-raġuni, il-proprjetarju ta’ dritt ta’ proprjetà intellettwali ma jkunx kapaċi li juża t-trade mark huwa stess, liema każijiet ma humiex xi ħaġa mhux tas-soltu fid-dawl tal-kumplessità tas-sitwazzjoni ekonomika attwali. F’sistema ekonomika li fiha, minħabba ż-żieda tal-interdipendenza u tal-internazzjonalizzazzjoni tal-proċessi ekonomiċi, sar diffiċli li wieħed juża b’mod komplet u waħdu monopolju f’settur ekonomiku speċifiku, indipendentement mill-ħtieġa li jkompli bl-iżvilupp tekniku u kreattiv tal-prodotti (33), l-użu ta’ beni intanġibbli ma għandux isir biss u direttament mill-proprjetarju tad-drittijiet ta’ proprjetà intellettwali iżda tabilħaqq bil-parteċipazzjoni ta’ atturi ekonomiċi oħra sabiex flimkien jiżguraw użu ottimali. L-għoti ta’ liċenzji jippermetti li jiġu skoperti diversi possibilitajiet ta’ użu u li jintrebħu partijiet ġodda tas-suq. Meta l-persuna liċenzjata timplementa politika ta’ marketing fl-interess tagħha stess sabiex tiġbed klijenti ġodda, dan għandu fl-aħħar mill-aħħar l-effett li jsaħħaħ ir-reputazzjoni tat-trade mark li minnu dan jibbenefika, da parti tiegħu, il-konċedent tal-liċenzja (34) . Għaldaqstant, il-liċenzji jikkostitwixxu strumenti li jippermettu użu ottimali tad-drittijiet ta’ proprjetà intellettwali. Huwa fuq kollox għal din ir-raġuni li llum dawn huma l-iktar forma komuni ta’ użu kummerċjali ta’ dawn id-drittijiet, flimkien mat-trasferiment u l-garanzija. F’dan il-kuntest, mill-perspettiva tal-konċedent ta’ liċenzja, wieħed jista’ jara wkoll għaliex liċenzja hija normalment mogħtija bl-anteċipazzjoni ta’ użu fil-futur (35) .

47. The Court identified those different facets in Arsenal Football Club , (35) describing the links between them in clear and detailed terms. According to the Court, trade mark rights constitute an essential element in the system of undistorted competition which EU law is intended to establish and maintain. In such a system, undertakings must be able to attract and retain customers by the quality of their goods or services, which is made possible only by distinctive signs allowing them to be identified. In that context, the essential function of a trade mark is to guarantee the identity of origin of the marked goods or services to the consumer or end user by enabling him, without any possibility of confusion, to distinguish the goods or services from others which have another origin. For the trade mark to be able to fulfil its essential role in the system of undistorted competition which the Treaty seeks to establish and maintain, it must offer a guarantee that all the goods or services bearing it have been manufactured or supplied under the control of a single undertaking which is responsible for their quality.

46. Ċertament, il-kliem “użu konformi mad-destinazzjoni” fis-sens indikat iktar ’il fuq jista’ jiġi interpretat b’mod ieħor skont id-dritt ta’ proprjetà intellettwali inkwistjoni. Tista’ ssir distinzjoni bejn id-drittijiet ta’ proprjetà intellettwali skont il-portata tal-protezzjoni li huma joffru. F’dan il-kuntest, huwa għaqli li wieħed jipproċedi mill-ġdid għal analiżi ġuridika sabiex jiġi evalwat jekk is-setgħat ta’ użu ta’ dritt ta’ proprjetà intellettwali humiex essenzjali għal kuntratt ta’ liċenzjar speċifiku. Flimkien mal-leġiżlazzjoni li tirregola l-konklużjoni ta’ kuntratti ta’ liċenzjar ta’ drittijiet tal-proprjetà intellettwali u li tiddefinixxi l-karatteristiċi essenzjali ta’ diversi drittijiet ta’ proprjetà intellettwali, il-kuntratti konklużi bejn il-partijiet f’kull każ partikolari għandhom rwol determinanti. Mill-kuntratti ta’ liċenzjar, li huma espressjoni tal-awtonomija kuntrattwali, jistgħu jiġu dedotti konklużjonijiet dwar il-portata tas-setgħat konċessi (36) .

48. Subsequently, the Court has developed its case-law on trade marks, emphasising other facets of the indicator of origin function and, in so doing, according them no lesser importance. This follows from L’Oréal and Others (36) and Google France and Google (37) in which, initially, the Court referred to that essential function before going on to clarify that, in addition to the guarantee to consumers of the quality of the goods or services in question, a trade mark fulfils communication, investment and advertising functions. In light of that clarification, there can no longer be any doubt that – also in the view of the Court – the function with regard to origin constitutes only one of several functions of a trade mark and has equal status with the quality or advertising functions. (38) Consequently, in determining whether use of a trade mark in accordance with its purpose is intended, consideration must given also to the other functions it fulfils in the context of commerce.

47. Fil-kawża prinċipali, Bureau Gevers u Walsh Optical ikkonkludew kuntratt intitolat “kuntratt ta’ liċenzjar” li għandu bħala s-suġġett tiegħu dritt ta’ trade mark. Madankollu, meħud waħdu, dan l-isem magħżul mill-partijiet jipprovdi biss ftit evidenza fuq il-mod li bih għandu jiġi klassifikat ġuridikament il-kuntratt (37) . Fil-fatt, huwa possibbli, minn naħa, li l-klassifikazzjoni magħżula mill-partijiet tkun tidher li hija ġuridikament żbaljata. Min-naħa l-oħra, għandu jiġi evitat ukoll li l-partijiet jagħżlu terminoloġija speċifika, possibilment b’mod intenzjonali, sabiex jeżentaw ruħhom mill-konsegwenzi ġuridiċi provduti mid-dritt tal-Unjoni fil-qasam ta’ kuntratti ta’ liċenzjar. Dan il-każ jinvolvi privileġġ li wieħed jipproċedi għar-reġistrazzjoni prijoritarja ta’ isem ta’ dominju fil-kuntest ta’ żmien speċifiku għal reġistrazzjoni bikrija (“sunrise period”). F’dan il-kuntest, għandu jiġi adottat approċċ oġġettiv li jippermetti li jiġi eżaminat, essenzjalment, jekk l-għan ta’ dan il-kuntratt huwiex li jippermetti lil Bureau Gevers li tutilizza t-trade mark inkwistjoni skont id-destinazzjoni tagħha.

49. According to Bureau Gevers it was not the intention that Walsh Optical should grant it contractual authority to offer on its own account goods or services under the trade mark concerned. Nor was it agreed that Bureau Gevers would advertise the products of Walsh Optical on the internal market of the European Union. Moreover, there are no grounds on which to presume that Bureau Gevers sought to invest in the trade mark. In fact, there was no connection at all between Bureau Gevers and the relevant market segment. Instead, the agreement in question was limited to ensuring that Bureau Gevers was commissioned with the task of registering the domain name ‘lensworld.eu’ in its own name. Accordingly, the parties did not agree any use of the trade mark that would be even remotely consistent with its specific functions. Consequently, it cannot be said that the trade mark was intended to be used in accordance with its purpose.

48. Għal dan il-għan, huwa meħtieġ li tiġi mfakkra fil-qosor il-funzjoni ta’ trade mark fil-kummerċ. Fil-fatt, huwa biss wara li jsir dan li wieħed jista’ jiddetermina jekk il-partijiet kontraenti qablux dwar użu konformi mad-destinazzjoni, jiġifieri konformi mal-funzjoni tat-trade mark. F’dan il-kuntest, tagħtina risposta l-ġurisprudenza importanti tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja relattiva għad-Direttiva 89/104 u għar-Regolament Nru 40/94.

50. Finally, it must be observed that the agreement concluded between the parties does not provide any indication as to whether the licensee was to be entitled to assert vis-à-vis third parties the rights conferred by the trade mark, although this is a matter that would usually be addressed in any licensing agreement. To that extent, licence agreements also fulfil a dispute resolution function, (39) in that they include provisions establishing the procedure to be followed should competitors infringe the intellectual property right granted to the licensee or where the licensee does not adhere to the agreed conditions of licence. The first aspect is specifically relevant in the case of the licensing of a trade mark, as this intellectual property right confers on its holder the right to prevent the unauthorised use of an identical mark, as can be seen from Article 5 of Directive 89/104 and Article 9 of Regulation No 40/94. Consequently, to be categorised as a licensing agreement in relation to a trade mark, the agreement concluded between Bureau Gevers and Walsh Optical would necessarily have had to govern that aspect. As that was not the case, its categorisation as a licence agreement appears doubtful.

49. Hekk kif esponiet il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja ripetutament, it-trade mark taqdi diversi funzjonijiet. Il-funzjoni essenzjali tagħha hija li tiggarantixxi lill-konsumatur l-oriġini tal-prodott jew tas-servizz (38) . Għalhekk, it-trade mark tikkostitwixxi mezz ta’ identifikazzjoni u ta’ individwalizzazzjoni fil-kummerċ. Madankollu, dik li bi qbil tissejjaħ il-funzjoni tal-indikazzjoni tal-oriġini għandha diversi aspetti li ma għandhomx jiġu injorati matul l-evalwazzjoni tas-sinjifikat tat-trade mark għas-sistema ekonomika.

51. Given that the agreement in question lacks essential elements of a licence agreement, that is, first, the grant of a right to exploit the trade mark commercially by identifying goods and services with the mark and, second, the power to assert vis-à-vis third parties the rights conferred by the trade mark, the question arises as to what legal significance is to be attached to the fact that the agreement nevertheless granted authority to register the domain name. Consequently, the question arises as to how this agreement is to be categorised in legal terms. In this context, the following should be noted.

50. Il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja enfasizzat dawn id-diversi aspetti fis-sentenza Arsenal Football Club (39), li fiha din elenkat ir-rabtiet reċiproċi li jeżistu bejniethom billi esponiethom b’mod konkret. Skont il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, il-liġi tat-trade marks tikkostitwixxi element essenzjali tas-sistema ta’ kompetizzjoni ġusta li d-dritt tal-Unjoni għandu l-għan li jistabbilixxi u jżomm fis-seħħ. F’sistema bħal din, l-impriżi jridu jkunu f’pożizzjoni li jiġbdu l-klijentela permezz tal-kwalità tal-prodotti jew tas-servizzi tagħhom, li huwa possibbli biss permezz tal-eżistenza ta’ sinjali distintivi li jippermettu li jidentifikawhom. F’dan il-kuntest, il-funzjoni essenzjali tat-trade mark hija li tiggarantixxi lill-konsumatur jew lill-utent finali l-identità tal-oriġini tal-prodott jew tas-servizz kopert mit-trade mark, billi tippermettilu jiddistingwi mingħajr il-possibbiltà ta’ konfużjoni dan il-prodott jew servizz minn dawk li għandhom provenjenza differenti. Fil-fatt, sabiex it-trade mark tkun tista’ taqdi r-rwol tagħha ta’ element essenzjali fis-sistema ta’ kompetizzjoni ġusta li t-Trattat għandu l-għan li jistabbilixxi u jżomm fis-seħħ, din għandha tikkostitwixxi l-garanzija li l-prodotti jew is-servizzi kollha koperti minnha ġew prodotti jew provduti taħt il-kontroll ta’ impriża waħda li lilha tista’ tiġi attribwita r-responsabbiltà għall-kwalità tagħhom.

52. On the one hand, there can hardly be any doubt, in my view, that the grant of that authority must be regarded in legal terms as the relinquishment of an element of the original rights accorded to Walsh Optical as the holder of the trade mark. At issue, in that regard, is the right to register a domain name which, in principle, is reserved to the holder of a national or Community trade mark. In relation to the right to .eu domains, that privilege conferred on the holder of the trade mark is reflected in Article 12 of Regulation No 874/2004 which, as I set out in my introductory observations, grants him priority in the registration of domain names. The objective of that provision is to safeguard the holder of the trade mark against the risk that a third party registers a domain name with the same wording before the holder does.

51. Minn dak iż-żmien ’l hawn, il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja żviluppat il-ġurisprudenza tagħha fil-liġi tat-trade marks billi insistiet fuq l-aspetti l-oħra tal-funzjoni tal-indikazzjoni tal-oriġini u billi rrikonoxxiet li, f’dan ir-rigward, dawn kellhom importanza li ma hijiex negliġibbli. Xhieda ta’ dan huma s-sentenzi l’Oréal et (40) u Google France u Google (41), li fihom il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja fakkret, fl-ewwel lok, din il-funzjoni prinċipali sabiex sussegwentement tiċċara li l-trade mark ma għandhiex biss l-għan li tiggarantixxi l-provenjenza tal-prodott jew tas-servizz ikkonċernat, iżda li din tissodisfa wkoll funzjonijiet ta’ komunikazzjoni, ta’ investiment u ta’ reklamar. Fid-dawl ta’ din il-konstatazzjoni, ma għandux ikun hemm iktar dubju li, anki fil-ġurisprudenza tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, il-funzjoni tal-indikazzjoni tal-oriġini hija biss waħda mill-funzjonijiet tat-trade mark u din għandha valur ugwali meta mqabbla mal-funzjonijiet ta’ kwalità jew ta’ reklamar (42) . Għaldaqstant, matul l-evalwazzjoni tal-kwistjoni dwar jekk l-użu previst ta’ trade mark huwiex konformi mad-destinazzjoni tagħha, iridu jittieħdu inkunsiderazzjoni wkoll il-funzjonijiet l-oħra li din taqdi fis-sistema ekonomika.

53. On the other hand, the fact cannot be ignored that the relinquishment by the holder of a trade mark of his original right to file an application for registration of the corresponding domain name cannot be equated with the waiver of the rights conferred by the trade mark that would be typical in the case of a licence agreement. As I have already observed, the agreement concluded between Walsh Optical and Bureau Gevers did not provide for the use of the trade mark or the corresponding domain name for the purposes of trade. Instead, the agreement had an entirely different purpose from that typically pursued by a licence agreement. Therefore, from an objective point of view, it does not correspond to the definition of a licence agreement found in EU law.

52. Skont Bureau Gevers, ma kienx previst li Walsh Optical tagħtiha kuntrattwalment is-setgħa li toffri, hija stess, prodotti jew servizzi bl-użu tat-trade mark inkwistjoni. Lanqas ma kien maqbul li Bureau Gevers tirreklama l-prodotti ta’ Walsh Optical fis-suq intern tal-Unjoni Ewropea. Xejn ma juri li Bureau Gevers riedet tinvesti fit-trade mark. Fil-fatt, ma teżisti l-ebda rabta bejn Bureau Gevers u s-settur rilevanti tas-suq. Min-naħa l-oħra, il-kuntratt inkwistjoni jillimita ruħu biex jipprovdi li Bureau Gevers kienet sejra tingħata l-funzjoni li tirreġistra f’isimha l-isem ta’ dominju “lensworld.eu”. Għaldaqstant, ma ntlaħaq l-ebda ftehim bejn il-partijiet, lanqas b’mod approssimattiv, dwar l-użu tat-trade mark b’mod konformi mal-funzjonijiet speċifiċi tagħha. Għalhekk, wieħed ma jistax jitkellem dwar użu tat-trade mark b’mod konformi mad-destinazzjoni prevista.

54. Consequently, Bureau Gevers cannot be regarded as a ‘licensee of a prior right’ within the meaning of Article 12(2) of Regulation No 874/2004.

53. Fl-aħħarnett, nixtieq nerġa’ nirrileva li l-kuntratt inkwistjoni ma jinkludi l-ebda indikazzjoni li tipprovdi li l-persuna liċenzjata kienet ser ikollha s-setgħa li tasserixxi d-drittijiet ibbażati fuq it-trade mark kontra terzi persuni, għalkemm dan huwa normalment is-suġġett ta’ kwalunkwe kuntratt ta’ liċenzjar. Fil-fatt, il-kuntratti ta’ liċenzjar jaqdu wkoll funzjoni ta’ soluzzjoni ta’ konflitti (43), jekk dawn ikun fihom dispożizzjonijiet relattivi għall-proċeduri li għandhom jittieħdu meta kompetituri jikkontestaw id-drittijiet ta’ proprjetà intellettwali tal-persuna liċenzjata jew meta din tal-aħħar ma tosservax il-kundizzjonijiet maqbula tal-liċenzjar. L-ewwel aspett huwa partikolarment rilevanti fil-każ ta’ liċenzja ta’ trade mark peress li dan id-dritt ta’ proprjetà intellettwali jagħti lill-proprjetarju tiegħu d-dritt li jipprojbixxi l-użu mhux awtorizzat ta’ trade mark identika minn terzi persuni, hekk kif jindika l-Artikolu 5 tad-Direttiva 89/104 u l-Artikolu 9 tar-Regolament Nru 40/94. Għaldaqstant, sabiex jikkwalifika għal kuntratt ta’ liċenzjar ta’ trade mark, kien essenzjali li l-kuntratt konkluż bejn Bureau Gevers u Walsh Optical ikopri dan l-aspett. Peress li dan ma kienx il-każ, huwa dubjuż jekk il-kuntratt jistax jitqies kuntratt ta’ liċenzjar.

2. Categorisation as a contract for the provision of services

54. Jiena nikkunsidra li meta l-elementi essenzjali tal-kuntratt ta’ liċenzjar ikunu nieqsa mill-kuntratt inkwistjoni, jiġifieri, l-ewwel nett, l-għoti tad-dritt li t-trade mark tkun tista’ tintuża ekonomikament billi titpoġġa fuq prodotti jew servizzi, u t-tieni nett, is-setgħa li d-drittijiet ibbażati fuq it-trade mark ikunu jistgħu jiġu infurzati kontra terzi persuni, tqum il-kwistjoni dwar kif għandu jiġi evalwat ġuridikament il-fatt li, minkejja dan kollu, dan il-kuntratt kien jagħti s-setgħa li jiġi reġistrat isem ta’ dominju. Għalhekk, il-kwistjoni li titqajjem hija dik tal-klassifikazzjoni ġuridika ta’ dan il-kuntratt. F’dan ir-rigward, nixtieq nirrileva dan li ġej.

55. It is possible that the agreement in question is better categorised in legal terms as a contract for the provision of services. As the Court held in Falco Privatstiftung and Rabitsch , for the purposes of the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001, the concept of ‘service’ implies that the party who provides the service carries out a particular activity in return for remuneration. (40) On the basis of that definition, the Court distinguished contracts for services from licensing agreements and, in that connection, held that the subject-matter of those two forms of contract was not the same. (41)

55. Minn naħa, fil-fehma tiegħi, ma jeżisti l-ebda dubju li l-għoti ta’ setgħa ta’ reġistrazzjoni għandu jiġi ġuridikament interpretat bħala rinunzja favur parti tad-drittijiet oriġinali li għandha Walsh Optical bħala l-propjetarju tat-trade mark. F’dan ir-rigward, dan huwa d-dritt ta’ reġistrazzjoni ta’ isem ta’ dominju li huwa ġeneralment riżervat esklussivament għall-proprjetarju ta’ trade mark nazzjonali u/jew trade mark Komunitarja. Fir-rigward tad-dritt relattiv għad-dominji.eu, dan il-privileġġ tal-proprjetarju tat-trademark jittieħed inkunsiderazzjoni mid-dispożizzjonijiet previsti fl-Artikolu 12 tar-Regolament Nru 874/2004 li, hekk kif diġà spjegajt fir-rimarki ta’ introduzzjoni tiegħi, jagħtih il-prijorità fil-kuntest tar-reġistrazzjoni ta’ ismijiet ta’ dominju. Dawn id-dispożizzjonijiet huma intiżi biex jipproteġu lill-proprjetarju tat-trade mark mir-riskju li terza persuna tirreġistra isem ta’ dominju simili qablu.

56. In my Opinion in that case, (42) I endeavoured first of all to define the concept of ‘service’ in abstract terms. In that regard, I observed that two aspects are of crucial importance for the definition of that concept. First, the usual meaning of the term ‘service’ requires that the person providing the service perform a particular activity; hence, the provision of services requires some activity or active conduct on the part of the person providing the service. Second, services must, in principle, be provided against payment.

56. Min-naħa l-oħra, wieħed ma għandux jinsa li rinunzja mill-proprjetarju ta’ trade mark għad-dritt oriġinali tiegħu, jiġifieri li jitlob ir-reġistrazzjoni tal-isem ta’ dominju li jikkorrispondi għat-trade mark tiegħu, ma tistax titqies li hija ekwivalenti għal rinunzja tad-drittijiet ibbażati fuq it-trade mark, li tipikament issir fil-każ ta’ kuntratt ta’ liċenzjar. Hekk kif diġà rrilevajt, il-kuntratt konkluż bejn Walsh Optical u Bureau Gevers effettivament ma kien jipprovdi għal ebda użu tat-trade mark u/jew tal-isem ta’ dominju li jikkorrispondi għaliha għal skopijiet kummerċjali. Fil-fatt, dan il-kuntratt kellu għan kompletament differenti minn dak ta’ kuntratt ta’ liċenzjar normali. B’dan il-mod, oġġettivament jidher li dan ma jikkorrispondix għad-definizzjoni ta’ kuntratt ta’ liċenzjar bħal dak li fuqu jinsabu bbażati d-dispożizzjonijiet tal-Unjoni.

57. As regards the case in the main proceedings, it must be noted that Bureau Gevers committed itself contractually, in return for the payment of a fee, to using reasonable efforts to file an application and to obtaining a .eu registration for the domain name. What is noticeable in that connection is the fact that the text of the contractual agreement expressly refers to ‘services’ in that context. (43) This all points to the fact that in reality Bureau Gevers was required, vis-à-vis Walsh Optical, to perform an activity, that is a service within the meaning of the definition set out above. Admittedly, the registration of the domain name was effected in its own name. However, given that Bureau Gevers did not intend to make use of the trade mark or the domain name related thereto in accordance with its proper purpose, it must be presumed that this service was performed for the benefit of Walsh Optical alone. In those circumstances, the agreement in question corresponds to the definition of a contract for the provision of services.

57. Għalhekk Bureau Gevers ma tistax tiġi kkunsidrata bħala “persuni liċenzjati ta’ drittijiet ta’ qabel [persuna liċenzjata ta’ drittijiet preċedenti]” fis-sens tal-Artikolu 12(2) tar-Regolament Nru 874/2004.

3. Risk of circumvention of the legislative objective

2. Riskju ta’ distorsjoni tal-għan tar-regolament

58. The question arises whether the categorisation of the agreement as a contract for the provision of services none the less precludes application of the second subparagraph of Article 12(2) of Regulation No 874/2004. In my view, application of that provision to the facts of the present case is precluded on the following grounds.

58. Il-kwistjoni li titqajjem fil-każ preżenti hija dik dwar jekk il-klassifikazzjoni tal-kuntratt bħala kuntratt ta’ servizz tipprekludix, madankollu, l-applikazzjoni tat-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 12(2) tar-Regolament Nru 874/2004. Jiena nikkunsidra li din id-dispożizzjoni ma tapplikax għas-sitwazzjoni preżenti minħabba dawn ir-raġunijiet.

59. First, it must be noted that, according to Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 733/2002, the category of persons entitled to apply for .eu domain names is restricted to undertakings and organisations having their ‘registered office, central administration or principal place of business within the [European Union]’. A similar restriction applies also to natural persons who must be resident in the European Union. (44) In light of its clarity, that rule must be regarded as reflecting a fundamental choice on the part of the EU legislature which must necessarily be respected in the interpretation of the legislative scheme. It would not be possible to depart from that rule without contravening the wording.

59. Nibda biex ngħid li nixtieq nenfasizza li, skont l-Artikolu 4(2)(b) tar-Regolament Nru 733/2002, iċ-ċirku ta’ persuni li għandhom is-setgħa jitolbu isem ta’ dominju .eu huwa limitat għall-impriżi u l-organizzazzjonijiet li “jkollha [jkollhom] l-uffiċċju reġistrat tagħha [tagħhom], l-amministrazzjoni ċentrali jew il-post prinċipali tan-negozju [tagħhom] [fl-Unjoni Ewropea]”. F’dan il-kuntest, din ir-restrizzjoni tapplika wkoll għal persuni naturali peress li dawn irid ikollhom il-post ta’ residenza tagħhom fl-Unjoni Ewropea (44) . Minħabba ċ-ċarezza tagħha, din il-leġiżlazzjoni għandha tiġi mifhuma bħala espressjoni ta’ deċiżjoni ta’ prinċipju tal-leġiżlatur tal-Unjoni li, fil-kuntest tal-interpretazzjoni tal-leġiżlazzjoni applikabbli, għandha dejjem tittieħed inkunsiderazzjoni. Huwa impossibbli li ssir deroga minn tali leġiżlazzjoni mingħajr ma jinkiser, b’dan il-mod, il-kliem tagħha.

60. Although it m ay appear obvious that registration of a domain involving a ccTLD presupposes that the applicant is resident in the country identified by the country code domain, it must be observed that international practice is not uniform in that regard. (45) The number of States which require, as a condition for registration of a domain under that country’s ccTLD, the applicant’s residence within the country concerned is roughly equal to the number not imposing that condition. Many countries – including Germany and the United Kingdom – do not require the applicant for the domain to be resident in the country or are content for the applicant to specify an agent who is resident there. In the case of .eu domains, the EU legislature appears to have adopted a stricter approach. The basic rule established in Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 733/2002 makes it clear that the European Union wishes to strengthen the identificatory power of the .eu ccTLD, in that it excludes from the outset applicants for registration who are not resident in a Member State. (46)

60. Għalkemm jidher loġiku li dominju jista’ jiġi reġistrat biss fil-kuntest ta’ dominju nazzjonali tal-ogħla livell meta l-applikant ikun stabbilit fil-pajjiż li jkun identifikat mid-dominju nazzjonali, għandu jiġi ppreċiżat, madankollu, li l-prattika internazzjonali ma hijiex omoġenja f’dan il-qasam (45) . In-numru ta’ pajjiżi li fihom huwa meħtieġ li l-applikant ikollu s-sede tiegħu fit-territorju nazzjonali għar-reġistrazzjoni ta’ dominju taħt is-ccTLD nazzjonali, prattikament jikkorrispondi għall-grupp ta’ pajjiżi li jirrinunzjaw għal dan ir-rekwiżit. Ħafna pajjiżi - inklużi l-Ġermanja u r-Renju Unit - ma jeżiġux li l-applikant ta’ dominju jkollu s-sede tiegħu fit-territorju nazzjonali jew għallinqas jissodisfaw ruħhom bil-ħatra ta’ rappreżentant tal-applikant li jkun stabbilit fil-pajjiż. Fir-rigward tad-dominji.eu, jidher b’mod ċar li l-leġiżlatur tal-Unjoni għażel approċċ iktar restrittiv. Il-leġiżlazzjoni prinċipali prevista fl-Artikolu 4(2)(b) tar-Regolament Nru 733/2002 turi b’mod ċar li l-Unjoni tixtieq issaħħaħ il-forza ta’ identifikazzjoni tas-ccTLD “eu”, billi tirrifjuta mill-ewwel ir-reġistrazzjoni lill-applikanti li ma jkunux stabbiliti fi Stat Membru (46) .

61. That corresponds also to the objective of Regulation No 733/2002 as stated in recital 6 in the preamble thereto. It follows from that recital that the .eu TLD was intended to ‘provide a clearly identified link with the Community, the associated legal framework, and the European market place’. It was envisaged that this would enable undertakings, organisations and natural persons within the Community to register in a specific domain which would make this link obvious. That recital indicates that, in the view of the EU legislature, an undertaking may be regarded as having a link to the European Union sufficient to entitle it to register a domain name only if its registered office, central administration or principal place of business is within the European Union. As the Commission correctly argued, (47) an undertaking’s link with the internal market may manifest itself in establishment within the European Union but also in the use of the trade mark in relation to goods or services in the course of trade.

61. Dan jikkorrispondi wkoll mal-għan tar-Regolament Nru 733/2002, kif jista’ jinqara fil-premessa 6 tiegħu. Fil-fatt jirriżulta li d-dominji tal-ogħla livell .eu “għandu jipprovdi [għandhom jipprovdu] rabta identifikata b’mod ċar mal-Komunità, il-kwadru legali assoċjat, u s-suq Ewropew.” Dawn għandhom jippermettu lin-negozji, lil organizzazzjonijiet u lil persuni naturali fil-Komunità li jirreġistraw ruħhom taħt dominju speċifiku, li jwassal biex jagħmel din ir-rabta evidenti. Din il-premessa tindika li għal-leġiżlatur tal-Unjoni jista’ jkun hemm rabta suffiċjenti ta’ impriża speċifika mal-Unjoni li tagħti s-setgħa ta’ reġistrazzjoni ta’ ismijiet ta’ dominju biss jekk din l-impriża jkollha l-uffiċċju reġistrat tagħha, l-amministrazzjoni ċentrali tagħha jew il-post prinċipali ta’ negozju tagħha fl-Unjoni. Hekk kif ġustament irrilevat il-Kummissjoni (47), ir-rabta ta’ impriża mas-suq intern tidher, minn naħa, mill-istabbiliment fit-territorju tal-Unjoni, iżda wkoll, min-naħa l-oħra, mill-użu tat-trade mark fil-kummerċ b’rabta ma’ prodotti jew ma’ servizzi.

62. If one applies those principles of interpretation to the present case, it is clear that, in the case of Walsh Optical, there is no such link to the European Union. Walsh Optical does not have its registered office in the European Union, nor are there any reasons to presume that use of the trade mark in accordance with its purpose, whether by Walsh Optical itself or by its putative licensee Bureau Gevers, was intended. First, as I have already identified, that was not the purpose of the agreement at issue. Second, it must be noted that the Benelux mark on which Bureau Gevers originally based its entitlement to register was removed from the trade mark register on 30 October 2006. Consequently, under trade mark law, the term ‘lensworld’ is no longer protected in the territory governed by Benelux trade mark law. Accordingly, as a result of that removal, the criteria for registration of the domain name are, to a certain extent, no longer satisfied.

62. Jekk wieħed japplika dawn il-kriterji ta’ interpretazzjoni għall-kawża prinċipali, jidher b’mod ċar li f’dak li jirrigwarda lil Walsh Optical, tali rabta mal-Unjoni ma teżistix. Din l-impriża ma għandhiex is-sede tagħha fl-Unjoni u xejn ma jindika lil wieħed biex jemmen li kien mixtieq, jew minn Walsh Optical innifisha, jew minn Bureau Gevers bħala l-persuna liċenzjata preżunta, li t-trade mark tintuża b’mod konformi mad-destinazzjoni tagħha. L-ewwel nett, kif diġà spjegajt, dan ma huwiex kopert mill-kuntratt inkwistjoni. It-tieni nett, għandu jiġi ppreċiżat li t-trade mark Benelux, li fuqha kienet oriġinarjament ibbażat id-dritt ta’ reġistrazzjoni tagħha Bureau Gevers, kienet ġiet imħassra fit-30 ta’ Ottubru 2006. Dan ifisser li, skont id-dritt tat-trade marks, l-indikazzjoni “lensworld” ma kinitx għadha tibbenefika mill-protezzjoni fil-qasam tad-dritt tat-trade marks Benelux. Fl-istess waqt, il-kundizzjonijiet ġuridiċi għar-reġistrazzjoni tal-isem ta’ dominju huma, sa ċertu punt, imħassra a posteriori .

63. Consequently, it would also be contrary to the spirit and purpose of Regulation No 733/2002 to allow an undertaking that is not an eligible party to obtain registration of the domain name sought. That would also have to be the case where the provisions governing eligibility for registration are ultimately circumvented in so far as registration is achieved by means of a legal construction such as the commissioning of a third-party organisation that is resident in the European Union and therefore eligible to apply. A strict interpretation of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 733/2002 so as to preclude situations such as that in the present case appears necessary in order to ensure the practical effectiveness of that provision. To adopt an interpretation which tolerated conduct of that kind would mean that the link to the European Union sought by the EU legislature would not be fully guaranteed, and thus, ultimately, the objective of the regulation would be circumvented.

63. Għaldaqstant, ikun ukoll kuntrarju għall-għan tar-Regolament Nru 733/2002 li impriżi li ma humiex intitolati jippreżentaw applikazzjoni jiġu awtorizzati jiksbu r-reġistrazjoni tal-isem ta’ dominju mixtieq. Dan għandu japplika wkoll għall-każijiet fejn id-dispożizzjonijiet relattivi għad-drittijiet ta’ reġistrazzjoni jkunu finalment evitati minħabba l-fatt li r-reġistrazzjoni tinkiseb bl-użu ta’ struttura legali bħalma huwa l-għoti ta’ prokura lil organizzazzjoni oħra stabbilita fl-Unjoni, li għalhekk tkun tista’ tapplika għar-reġistrazzjoni. Sabiex jiġi żgurat l-effett prattiku ta’ din il-leġiżlazzjoni, hija meħtieġa interpretazzjoni stretta tal-Artikolu 4(2)(b) tar-Regolament Nru 733/2002 biex sitwazzjonijiet bħal dawk tal-każ preżenti jiġu esklużi. Interpretazzjoni li tippermetti tali mġiba jkollha l-konsegwenza li ma tkunx garantita b’mod komplet ir-rabta mal-Unjoni mixtieqa mil-leġiżlatur tal-Unjoni, li, fl-aħħar mill-aħħar, tagħti lok għad-distorsjoni tal-għan imfittex mir-regolament.

64. Accordingly, the fact that the agreement concluded between Walsh Optical and Bureau Gevers must be categorised in legal terms not as a licence agreement but as a contract for the provision of services precludes the application of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation No 733/2002. Having regard to the fact that, in the case in the main proceedings, an essential eligibility criterion was not satisfied at the time when the application was filed, the Registry was precluded from registering the domain name in question. Therefore, as the registration was unlawful, the Registry must at its own initiative revoke the domain name in question pursuant to Article 20(b) of Regulation No 874/2004.

64. Dan ifisser li l-fatt li l-kuntratt konkluż bejn Walsh Optical u Bureau Gevers ma jistax jiġi legalment ikklassifikat bħala kuntratt ta’ liċenzjar iżda pjuttost bħala kuntratt ta’ servizz, u jipprekludi l-applikazzjoni tal-Artikolu 4(2)(b) tar-Regolament Nru 733/2002. Fid-dawl tal-fatt li, fil-kawża prinċipali, ma kinitx sodisfatta kundizzjoni essenzjali għar-reġistrazzjoni fil-mument tal-applikazzjoni, ir-reġistru ma kellux id-dritt li jirreġistra l-isem tad-dominju inkwistjoni. Għaldaqstant, peress li r-reġistrazzjoni saret b’mod illegali, ir-reġistru għandu, fuq l-inizjattiva tiegħu stess, jirtira l-isem tad-dominju inkwistjoni skont l-Artikolu 20(2)(b) tar-Regolament Nru 874/2004.

4. Conclusion

3. Konklużjoni intermedjarja

65. In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first question must be that Article 12(2) of Regulation No 874/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation where the prior right concerned is a trade mark right, the words ‘licensees of prior rights’ do not refer to a person who has been authorised by the proprietor of the trade mark solely to register, in his own name but on behalf of the licensor, a domain name identical or similar to the trade mark, but without being authorised to put the trade mark to other uses or to use the sign as a trade mark – for example, for the purpose of marketing of goods or services under the trade mark.

65. Fid-dawl ta’ dak li ntqal, ir-risposta li għandha tingħata għall-ewwel domanda hi li l-kunċett ta’ “liċenzjati ta’ drittijiet ta’ qabel [preċedenti]” fis-sens tat-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 12(2) tar-Regolament Nru 874/2004, f’sitwazzjoni fejn id-dritt preċedenti kkonċernat ikun trade mark, ma jkoprix persuna li tkun ġiet awtorizzata biss mill-proprjetarju tat-trade mark, li tirreġistra, f’isimha propju iżda fl-interess tal-konċedent tal-liċenzja, isem ta’ dominju identiku jew li jixxiebah mat-trade mark, mingħajr madankollu ma tkun ġiet awtorizzata tagħmel użu ieħor mit-trade mark jew mis-sinjal bħala trade mark, bħal, pereżempju, biex tikkummerċjalizza prodotti jew servizzi taħt it-trade mark.

C – The second question

C – It-tieni domanda

66. As the second question expressly applies only if the first question is answered in the affirmative, there is no need to answer it.

66. Peress li t-tieni domanda saret biss fil-każ li tingħata risposta pożittiva għall-ewwel domanda, ma huwiex meħtieġ li tingħata risposta għaliha.

VII – Conclusion

VII – Konklużjoni

67. In the light of the above considerations, I propose that the Court answer the questions referred by the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles as follows:

67. Fid-dawl tal-kunsiderazzjonijiet preċedenti kollha, jiena nipproponi lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja biex tirrispondi kif ġej għad-domandi preliminari magħmula mill-Cour d’appel de Bruxelles :

The words ‘licensees of prior rights’ in Article 12(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the .eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation where the prior right concerned is a trade mark right, those words do not refer to a person who has been authorised by the proprietor of the trade mark solely to register, in his own name but on behalf of the licensor, a domain name identical or similar to the trade mark, but without being authorised to put the trade mark to other uses or to use the sign as a trade mark – for example, for the purpose of marketing of goods or services under the trade mark.

Il-kunċett ta’ “liċenzjati ta’ drittijiet ta’ qabel [preċedenti]” fis-sens tat-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 12(2) tar-Regolament tal-Kummissjoni Nru 874/2004, tat-28 ta’ April 2004, li jippreskrivi r-regoli tal-politika pubblika li jikkonċernaw l-implimentazzjoni u l-funzjonijiet tad-Dominju ta’ l-Ogħla Livell the.eu u l-prinċipji li jirregolaw ir-reġistrazzjoni, għandu jiġi interpretat fis-sens li f’sitwazzjoni fejn id-dritt preċedenti kkonċernat ikun trade mark, dan ma jkoprix persuna li tkun ġiet awtorizzata biss mill-proprjetarju tat-trade mark, li tirreġistra, f’isimha propju iżda fl-interess tal-konċedent tal-liċenzja, isem ta’ dominju identiku jew li jixxiebah mat-trade mark, mingħajr madankollu ma tkun ġiet awtorizzata tagħmel użu ieħor mit-trade mark jew mis-sinjal bħala trade mark, bħal, pereżempju, biex tikkummerċjalizza prodotti jew servizzi taħt it-trade mark.

(1) .

(1) .

(2)  – OJ 2002 L 113, p. 1.

(2) ĠU Edizzjoni Speċjali bil-Malti, Kapitolu 13, Vol. 29, p. 394.

(3)  – OJ 2004 L 162, p. 40.

(3) ĠU Edizzjoni Speċjali bil-Malti, Kapitolu 13, Vol. 34, p. 825.

(4)  – OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.

(4) ĠU Edizzjoni Speċjali bil-Malti, Kapitolu 17, Vol. 1, p. 92.

(5)  – OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.

(5) ĠU Edizzjoni Speċjali bil-Malti, Kapitolu  17, Vol. 1. p. 146.

(6)  – eEurope – An information society for all – Communication on a Commission initiative for the special European Council of Lisbon, 23 and 24 March 2000, COM(1999) 687 final.

(6)  – “eEurope – soċjetà tal-informazzjoni għal kulħadd” [traduzzjoni mhux uffiċjali]: Komunikazzjoni dwar inizjattiva tal-Kummissjoni għall-Kunsill Ewropew straordinarju ta’ Lisbona tat-23 u l-24 ta’ Marzu 2000, KUM (1999) 687 finali.

(7)  – On phased registration see in detail Bettinger, T., ‘New European Top-Level Domain .eu’, in Domain Name Law and Practice , Oxford 2005, p. 44; and Muñoz, R., ‘L’enregistrement d’un nom de domaine “.eu”’, Journaux des tribunaux – Droit européen , June 2005, No 120, p. 161 et seq.

(7) Fir-rigward tal-proċedura ta’ reġistrazzjoni progressiva ara T. Bettinger, “New European Top-Level Domain .eu”, f’Domain Name Law and Practice, Oxford 2005, 44; R. Muñoz, “ ‘L’enregistrement d’un nom de domaine .eu’ ”, Journaux des tribunaux – Droit européen, Ġunju 2005, Nru 120, p. 161 et seq .

(8)  – See Case C‑373/00 Adolf Truley [2003] ECR I‑1931, paragraph 35, and Case C‑287/98 Linster [2000] ECR I‑6917, paragraph 43.

(8) Ara sentenza Falco Privatstiftung u Rabitsch (iċċitata iktar ’il fuq fin-nota 14, punt 29).

(9)  – Case C‑90/92 Dr Tretter [1993] ECR I‑3569, paragraph 11.

(9) Ibidem , punt 14.

(10)  – In the Benelux countries, the law on individual and collective trade marks in respect of goods has been governed by the Uniform Benelux Law on Trade Marks since 1 January 1971. According to that law, a mark is valid throughout the whole Benelux area and the right cannot be divided on a territorial basis. Consequently, the common Benelux law on trade marks has largely replaced the separate national regimes which previously existed in the area of trade mark law (see, in that regard, Evrard., J. and Péters, P., La Défense de la Marque dans le Benelux , 2nd edition, Brussels 2000, pp. 8 and 17; and Verkade, F., ‘Angleichung des nationalen Markenrechts in der EWG: Benelux-Staaten’, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht Internationaler Teil , 1992, p. 92).

(10) Ara l-konklużjonijiet tiegħi Falco Privatstiftung u Rabitsch (iċċitati iktar ’il fuq fin-nota 11, punt 57).

(11)  – See my Opinion in Case C‑533/07 Falco Privatstiftung and Rabitsch [2009] ECR I‑3327, point 50.

(11) Il-Klawżola 4.2 tal-kuntratt tipprovdi: “il-persuna liċenzjata għandha toħroġ fattura għas-servizzi tagħha lill-konċedent tal-liċenzja” (“Licencee will charge Licensor for its services”).

(12)  – For example, in the area of copyright law, recital 30 in the preamble to Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) states that the rights referred to in that directive may be transferred, assigned or subject to the granting of contractual licences, without prejudice to the relevant national legislation on copyright and related rights. In the area of trade mark law, Article 22(1) of Regulation No 40/94 provides that a Community trade mark may be licensed for some or all of the goods or services for which it is registered and for the whole or part of the Community. The regulation on the Community patent will in future also contain provisions on contractual licensing; Article 19 in the proposal for a Council regulation on the Community patent (COM(2000) 412 final) provides that the Community patent may be licensed in whole or in part for the whole or part of the Community, and that a licence may be exclusive or non-exclusive.

(12) – Sentenzi tas-27 ta’ Frar 2003, Adolf Truley (C-373/00, Ġabra p. I-1931, punt 35), u tad-19 ta’ Settembru 2000, Linster (C-287/98, Ġabra p. I-6917, punt 43).

(13)  – See Vögele, A., Borstell, T. and Engler, G., Handbuch der Verrechnungspreise , 3rd edition, Munich 2011, point 352, who point out that the principle of freedom of contract applies, as a rule, to the conclusion of licence agreements and, as a result, the parties may agree to substantive restrictions on the licence which may be of a territorial, temporal, material or personal nature.

(13) – Sentenza tal-24 ta’ Ġunju 1993, Dr. Tretter (C-90/92, Ġabra p. I-3569, punt 11).

(14)  – Case C‑533/07 Falco Privatstiftung and Rabitsch [2009] ECR I‑3327, paragraph 31.

(14)  – Sa mill-1 ta’ Jannar 1971, fil-Benelux, il-liġi tat-trade marks għat-trade marks kummerċjali individwali u kollettivi hija regolata mil-liġi uniformi Benelux fuq it-trade marks. Din tipprovdi li trade mark tista’ tapplika biss fil-Benelux kollu; id-dritt ma jistax jiġi diviż fuq bażi territorjali. Għalhekk, fil-qasam tat-trade marks, fil-każ tal-liġi komuni tat-trade marks Benelux issostitwiet kważi għal kollox il-liġijiet nazzjonali speċifiċi li kienu jeżistu preċedentement (ara P. J./Peters, La Défence de la Marque dans le Benelux, it-tieni edizzjoni 2000, pp. 8 u 17; F. Verkade, “Angleichung des nationalen Markenrechts in der EWG: Benelux-Staaten”, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht Internationaler Teil, 1992, p. 92).

(15)  – Ibid., paragraph 32.

(15) Konklużjonijiet tas-27 ta’ Jannar 2009 (C-533/07, sentenza tat-23 ta’ April 2009, Ġabra p. I-3327, punt 50).

(16)  – See Stumpf, H. and Groß, M., Der Lizenzvertrag , 8th edition, Frankfurt am Main 2005, point 13, p. 36; and Ubertazzi, B., ‘IP-Lizenzverträge und die EG-Zuständigkeitsverordnung’, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht Internationaler Teil , 2010, p. 115.

(16) Fil-qasam tad-dritt tal-awtur, il-premessa 30 tad-Direttiva 2001/29/KE tal-Parlament Ewropew u tal-Kunsill, tat-22 ta’ Mejju 2001, dwar l-armonizzazzjoni ta’ ċerti aspetti ta’ drittijiet tal-awtur u drittijiet relatati fis-soċjetà tal-informazzjoni (ĠU Edizzjoni Speċjali bil-Malti, Kapitolu 17, Vol. 1, p. 230) tipprovdi li d-drittijiet imsemmija f’din id-Direttiva jistgħu jiġu trasferiti, assenjati jew mogħtija permezz ta’ liċenzji kuntrattwali, mingħajr preġudizzju għad-dispożizzjonijiet leġiżlattivi nazzjonali rilevanti dwar id-drittijiet tal-awtur u d-drittijiet relatati. Fil-qasam tal-liġi tat-trade marks, l-Artikolu 22(1) tar-Regolament Nru 40/94 jipprovdi li t-trade mark Komunitarja tista’ tiġi liċenzjata fir-rigward ta’ xi wħud mill-prodotti jew servizzi li għalihom hija reġistrata, jew fir-rigward ta’ kollha kemm huma, għall-Komunità kollha jew għal parti minnha. Bl-istess mod, ir-Regolament tal-Kunsill dwar il-privattiva Komunitarja ser ikun fiha, fil-futur, dispożizzjonijiet dwar liċenzji kuntrattwali; għalhekk l-Artikolu 19 tal-proposta għal Regolament tal-Kunsill dwar il-privattiva Komunitarja (KUM [2000] 412 finali) jipprovdi li l-privattiva Komunitarja tista’ tkun is-suġġett ta’ liċenzja, fit-totalità tagħha jew parzjalment, għall-Komunità kollha jew għal parti minnha. Il-liċenzji jistgħu jkunu esklussivi jew mhux esklussivi.

(17)  – For detail, see McGuire, M.-R., ‘Der Gerichtsstand des Erfüllungsorts nach Art. 5 Nr. 1 EuGVO bei Lizenzverträgen – Anmerkung zur Entscheidung EuGH Rs. C‑533/07 – Falco Privatstiftung und Thomas Rabitsch/Gisela Weller-Lindhorst’, Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht , 2010, p. 99.

(17) – Ara A. Vögele, T. Borstell, G. Engler, Handbuch der Verrechnungspreise, it-3 edizzjoni, Munich 2011, punt 352, li jenfasizzaw li, bħala regola, il-prinċipju tal-libertà kuntrattwali japplika għall-konklużjoni ta’ kuntratti ta’ liċenzjar b’tali mod li l-partijiet kontraenti jistgħu jaqblu dwar ċerti limitazzjonijiet sostantivi tal-liċenzja, li jistgħu jkunu ta’ natura ġeografika, temporali, materjali jew personali.

(18)  – OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.

(18)  – Sentenza tat-23 ta’ April 2009, Falco Privatstiftung u Rabitsch (C-533/07, Ġabra p. I-3327, punt 31).

(19)  – European Commission, ‘ Memorandum on the creation of an EEC trade mark ’, SEC(76) 2462 final.

(19) – Ibidem , punt 32.

(20)  – Guidelines concerning proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Part E, Section 5: Licences (available online at http://oami.europa.eu/ows/rw/resource/documents/CTM/guidelines/licences_en.pdf).

(20) – Ara H. Stumpf, M. Groß, Der Lizenzvertrag, it-8 edizzjoni, Frankfurt am Main 2005, punt. 13, p. 36; B. Ubertazzi, “IP-Lizenzverträge und die EG-Zuständigkeitsverordnung”, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht Internationaler Teil, 2010, p. 115.

(21)  – OJ 2004 L 195, p. 16.

(21)  – Għal iktar dettalji ara M.R. McGuire, “Der Gerichtsstand des Erfüllungsorts nach Art. 5 Nr. 1 EuGVO bei Lizenzverträgen – Anmerkung zur Entscheidung EuGH Rs. C-533/07 – Falco Privatstiftung und Thomas Rabitsch/Gisela Weller-Lindhorst”, Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht, 2010, p. 99.

(22)  – OJ 2004 L 123, p. 11.

(22) – ĠU L 78, p. 1.

(23)  – OJ 1998 L 213, p. 13.

(23) Kummissjoni Ewropea, memorandum dwar il-ħolqien ta’ trade mark Komunita rja, SEC (76) 2462 finali.

(24)  – See Pahlow, L., Lizenz und Lizenzvertrag im Recht des Geistigen Eigentums , Tübingen 2006, p. 182, who identifies different schools of thought in the academic legal literature on the nature of a licence. Whereas some refer to a mere permission (Gestattung) others refer to a right of exploitation (Verwertungsrecht). In the author’s view, the sensible approach is to seek a common denominator and in the case of a licence to speak in general terms of an entitlement to use (Benutzungsberechtigung). A similar view is taken by Miguel Asensio, P.A., ‘Jurisprudencia española y comunitaria de Derecho internacional privado’, Revista española de Derecho Internacional , 2009, p. 201, who considers the understanding of a licence agreement as the mere waiver of the exercise of a certain right as identified in Falco Privatstiftung and Rabitsch to be too strict, as that is not the case in many contractual situations. Moreover, he points out that the Spanish law on patents, for example, establishes that the licensor must ensure that the licensee has an opportunity for use. None the less, he does not consider the definition adopted by the Court of Justice to be incorrect as it resulted from the particular circumstances of the case. Gouga, A., Die Übertragung und Lizenzierung der Marke nach griechischem und deutschem Recht unter Berücksichtigung des europäischen Markenrechts , Munich 1996, p. 230, correctly observes that on current understanding the essence of trade mark law involves both defensive rights to challenge use by others and positive rights of use and that, as a result, it is legally permissible to regard a trade mark licence also in terms of a positive right of use. Bühling, J., ‘Die Markenlizenz im Rechtsverkehr’, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht Internationaler Teil , 2010, p. 196, notes that licences to use industrial property rights are regularly described as the right to use the industrial property right to an extent which would otherwise fall within the scope of protection and use afforded to the holder of the industrial property right. In the same vein, see also Martiny, Münchener Kommentar zum BGB , 5th edition, 2010, point 222; Stimmel, U., ‘Die Beurteilung von Lizenzverträgen unter der Rom I‑Verordnung’, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht Internationaler Teil , 2010, p. 782; and Vögele, A., Borstell, T., and Engler, G., cited above in footnote 13, point 351.

(24) Linji gwida dwar proċeduri quddiem l-Uffiċċju għall-Armonizzazzjoni fis-Suq Intern (trade marks, disinni u mudelli), Parti E, Taqsima 5: Liċenzji (disponibbli fis-sit: http://oami.europa.eu/ows/rw/resource/documents/CTM/guidelines/licences_fr.pdf)

(25)  – See Gouga, A., cited above in footnote 24, p. 190, who takes the view that the term ‘licence’ includes any authority granted to the licensee by the licensor to use the intellectual property right or its precursor in the same manner as its holder, albeit to a different extent.

(25) ĠU Edizzjoni Speċjali bil-Malti, Kapitolu 17, Vol. 2, p. 32.

(26)  – To that effect, see Pfaff, D. and Nagel, S., Lizenzverträge , 3 rd edition, 2010, point 7, who argue that, on current understanding, the characteristic feature of a licence agreement is that the holder of a legal right enjoying full protection (for example, the holder of a patent) grants to a third party the authority to use and exploit the protected discoveries or processes.

(26) – ĠU Edizzjoni Speċjali bil-Malti, Kapitolu 8, Vol. 3, p. 74.

(27)  – See Stumpf, H. and Groß, M., cited above in footnote 16, point 117, p. 95.

(27) – ĠU Edizzjoni Speċjali bil-Malti, Kapitolu 13, Vol. 20, p. 395.

(28)  – See Bühling, J., cited above in footnote 24, p. 199, who refers to the specific purpose of a trade mark. On that view, the licence must safeguard the functions of the mark and, at the same time, strengthen the mark itself and increase its value to the licensor.

(28) – Ara L. Pahlow, Lizenz und Lizenzvertrag im Recht des Geistigen Eigentums, Tübingen 2006, p. 182, li jsemmi diversi teżijiet tad-duttrina dwar l-elementi essenzjali tal-liċenzjar. Filwaqt li ċerti persuni jitkellmu fuq sempliċi “awtorizzazzjoni”, oħrajn jargumentaw favur “dritt ta’ użu”. Skont Pahlow, wieħed għandu jibbaża ruħhu fuq “l-inqas denominatur komuni” u jħares lejn il-liċenzjar b’mod ġenerali bħala “dritt ta’użu”. Fl-istess sens, ara wkoll P.A. Miguel Asensio, “Jurisprudencia española y comunitaria de Derecho internacional privado”, Revista española de Derecho Internacional, 2009, p. 201, li jikkunsidra li l-kunċett ta’ kuntratt ta’ liċenzjar bħala sempliċi rinunzja għall-eżerċizzju ta’ dritt fis-sens tas-sentenza Falco Privatstiftung u Rabitsch huwa ristrett wisq peress li dan ma huwiex il-każ f’diversi kuntratti. Barra minn hekk, id-dritt Spanjol jipprovdi, pereżempju, għal privattivi li fir-rigward tagħhom il-konċedent tal-liċenzja jrid jiggarantixxi l-possibilità ta’ użu mill-persuna liċenzjata. Madankollu, l-awtur jikkunsidra li d-definizzjoni mogħtija mill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja fis-sentenza ċċitata iktar ’il fuq ma hijiex żbaljata peress li din hija marbuta maċ-ċirkustanzi tal-każ speċifiku. A. Gouga, Die Übertragung und Lizenzierung der Marke nach griechischem und deutschem Recht unter Berücksichtigung der europäischen Markenrechts, München 1996, p. 230, ġustament jenfasizza li, skont il-perspettiva ġuridika attwali, l-element essenzjali tal-liġi tat-trade marks jikkonsisti kemm f’setgħat negattivi ta’ difiża u fi dritt pożittiv ta’ użu, b’tali mod li huwa legali li l-liċenzjar ta’ trade mark jitqies wkoll fis-sens ta’ dritt pożittiv ta’ użu. J. Bühling, “Die Markenlizenz im Rechtsverkehr”, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht Internationaler Teil, 2010, p. 196, josserva li l-liċenzjar relattiv għal drittijiet ta’ proprjetà intellettwali ta’ natura kummerċjali huwa ġeneralment deskritt bħala d-dritt ta’ użu tal-proprjetà intellettwali b’tali mod li, mingħajru, l-użu jaqa’ taħt id-dritt ta’ projbizzjoni u ta’ użu tal-proprjetarju tad-dritt. F’dan is-sens ara wkoll Martiny, Münchener Kommentar zum BGB, il-5 edizzjoni, 2010, punt 222; U. Stimmel, “Die Beurteilung von Lizenzverträgen unter der Rom I-Verordnung”, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht Internationaler Teil, 2010, p. 782; A. Vögele, T. Borstell, G.  Engler, ibid . (iċċitat iktar ’il fuq fin-nota 13), punt 351.

(29)  – In connection with licensing agreements in the technology field, see Brinker, I., in Schwarze, J. (ed.) EU-Kommentar , 2nd edition, Baden-Baden 2009, Article 81 EC, point 96, p. 911, who argues that licence agreements constitute an important instrument by which the marketing of products within the common market is considerably simplified and accelerated. A firm which develops a particular technology but is not itself in a position to make full use of it and to manufacture products will often choose to grant licences to third parties for a particular licensing area in which the licensees operate exclusively and market the products manufactured using the relevant technology. According to the author, licensor and licensee – but also the public at large – benefit from the spread of technology using licensing agreements.

(29) – Ara A. Gouga, ibidem (iċċitat iktar ’il fuq fin-nota 24), p. 190, li jaħseb li l-kunċett ta’ liċenzjar jirrigwarda kwalunkwe setgħa mogħtija mill-konċedent tal-liċenzja lill-persuna liċenzjata sabiex tutilizza d-dritt ta’ proprjetà intellettwali jew id-drittijiet preċedenti għalih bl-istess mod bħall-proprjetarju, anki jekk dan isir b’mod differenti.

(30)  – See Pahlow, L., cited above in footnote 24, p. 218.

(30) – F’dan is-sens, ara D. Pfaff, S. Nagel, Lizenzverträge, it-3 edizzjoni, 2010, punt 7, li jirrilevaw li, skond il-ħsieb attwali, dak li huwa karatteristiku għall-kuntratti ta’ liċenzjar huwa li l-proprjetarju ta’ sitwazzjoni ġuridika protetta b’mod assolut (pereżempju, proprjetarju ta’ privattiva) jagħti lil terza persuna l-awtorizzazzjoni li tuża u tisfrutta l-iskoperti jew il-proċessi protetti.

(31)  – Ibid., p. 225.

(31) – Ara H. Stumpf, M. Gross, ibidem (iċċitat iktar ’il fuq fin-nota 16), punt 117, p. 95.

(32)  – See Pahlow, L., cited above in footnote 24, p. 187, who explains that the substance of the licence may be deduced from the legislative provisions and the specific agreement between the parties.

(32) – Ara J. Bühling, ibid (iċċitat iktar ’il fuq fin-nota 24), p. 199. Dan jirreferi għall-assenjazzjoni tal-liċenzja ta’ trade mark. Din tipprovdi li l-liċenzja trid tiżgura t-twettiq tal-funzjonijiet tat-trade mark, iżda wkoll, fl-istess waqt, issaħħaħ it-trade mark innifisha u żżid il-valur tagħha għall-konċedent tal-liċenzja.

(33)  – See Vögele, A., Borstell, T., and Engler, G., cited above in footnote 13, point 362, according to whom, for the purposes of differentiating licensing agreements in relation to licensed intangible assets, the description of the agreement is not crucial. Instead, both from a legal and fiscal point of view, what is decisive are the intangible assets actually used on the basis of the agreement.

(33) Fir-rigward tal-kuntratti ta’ liċenzjar fil-qasam teknoloġiku, ara I. Brinker, UE-Kommentar (editjat minn Jürgen Schwarze), it-2 edizzjoni, Baden-Baden 2009, Artikolu 81 KE, punt 96, p. 911, li jispjega li l-konklużjoni ta’ kuntratti ta’ liċenzjar tikkostitwixxi strument importanti li jissimplifika u jħaffef konsiderevolment it-tpoġġija ta’ prodotti fis-suq komuni. Dak li jiżviluppa teknoloġija speċifika u li ma jkunx f’pożizzjoni li jutilizza b’mod sħiħ hu innifsu u li jimmanifattura prodotti, ta’ spiss jagħżel li jagħti liċenzji lil kumpanniji terzi għal settur ġeografiku speċifiku li fih il-persuni liċenzjati joperaw b’mod esklussiv u jikkummerċjalizzaw il-prodotti manifatturati bl-użu tat-teknoloġija kkonċernata. Il-konċedenti tal-liċenzja u l-persuni liċenzjati, u wkoll il-pubbliku, jibbenefikaw mill-estenzjoni tat-teknoloġija abbażi ta’ kuntratt ta’ liċenzjar.

(34)  – See Case 102/77 Hoffmann-La Roche v Centrafarm [1978] ECR 1139, paragraph 7; Case 3/78 Centrafarm v American Home Products Corporation [1978] ECR 1823, paragraphs 11 and 14; and Case C‑10/89 HAG [1990] ECR I‑3711, paragraph 14. On the function of the trade mark as a guarantee of origin, see Wollmann, H., in Mayer, H., (ed.) EU- und EG-Vertrag , Art. 81 EGV, point 156, p. 53.

(34) Ara L. Pahlow, ibidem (iċċitat iktar ’il fuq fin-nota 24), p. 218.

(35)  – See Case C‑206/01 Arsenal Football Club [2002] ECR I‑10273, paragraphs 47 and 48.

(35) Ibidem , p. 225.

(36)  – See Case C‑487/07 L’Oréal and Others [2009] ECR I-5185, paragraph 58.

(36)  – Ara L. Pahlow, ibidem , p. 187. L-awtur jispjega li dan jista’ jiġi dedott mill-informazzjoni dwar il-kontenut tal-liċenzja, abbażi tal-ftehim konkluż bejn il-partijiet u d-dispożizzjonijiet leġiżlattivi.

(37)  – See Joined Cases C‑236/08 to C‑238/08 Google France and Google [2010] ECR I‑2417, paragraph 77.

(37) Skont A. Vögele, T. Borstell, G. Engler, ibid em (iċċitat iktar ’il fuq fin-nota 13), punt 362, sabiex issir distinzjoni bejn il-kuntratti ta’ liċenzjar fir-rigward ta’ beni intanġibbli li fir-rigward tagħhom tkun ingħatat il-liċenzja, l-isem tal-kuntratti ma huwiex determinanti. Dak li huwa ferm iktar rilevanti kemm mill-perspettiva ġuridika u kemm minn dik fiskali hija l-kwistjoni dwar liema huma l-beni intanġibbli li jkunu effettivament intużaw skont il-kuntratt.

(38)  – In the same vein, see Bühling, J., cited above in footnote 24, p. 199. See Sakulin, W., Trademark protection and freedom of expression , Alphen aan den Rijn 2011, p. 51, who regards as highly significant the Court’s finding in L’Oréal and Google that the other functions of a trade mark are equally deserving of protection. It will be recalled in that connection that Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer had already called for the protection of the other functions of trade marks in his Opinion in Arsenal Football Club , cited above in footnote 35, point 47.

(38) Ara s-sentenzi tat-23 ta’ Mejju 1978, Hoffmann-La Roche vs Centrafarm (102/77, Ġabra p. 1139, punt 7); tal-10 ta’ Ottubru 1978, Centrafarm vs American Home Products Corporation (3/78, Ġabra p. 1823, punti 11 u 14), u tas-17 ta’ Ottubru 1990, HAG (C-10/89, Ġabra I-3711, punt 14). Dwar il-funzjoni tal-indikazzjoni ta’ oriġini tat-trade mark, ara H. Wollmann, UE-und EG-Vertrag (editjat minn Heinz Mayer), Artikolu 81 KE, punt 156, p. 53).

(39)  – See Pahlow, L., cited above in footnote 24, p. 236.

(39) – Ara s-sentenza tat-12 ta’ Novembru 2002, Arsenal Football Club (C-206/01, Ġabra I-10273, punti 47 u 48).

(40)  – See Falco Privatstiftung and Rabitsch , cited in footnote 14, paragraph 29.

(40) Sentenza tat-18 ta’ Ġunju 2009, L’Oréal et (C-487/07, Gabra p. I-5185, punt 58).

(41)  – Ibid., paragraph 41.

(41) Sentenza tat-23 ta’ Marzu, 2010, Google France u Google (sentenzi magħquda C-236/08 sa C-238/08, Ġabra p. I-2417, punt 77).

(42)  – See my Opinion in Falco Privatstiftung and Rabitsch , cited in footnote 11, point 57.

(42) Fl-istess sens, ara J. Bühling, ibidem (iċċitat iktar ’il fuq fin-nota 24), p. 199. Ara W. Sakulin, Trademark protection and freedom of expression, Alphen aan den Rijn, 2011, p. 51, li jagħti importanza kbira lill-fatt li, fl-aħħar mill-aħħar, il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, fis-sentenzi tagħha l’Oréal u Google, ikkunsidrat li l-funzjonijiet l-oħra tat-trade mark kienu wkoll denji ta’ protezzjoni. F’dan il-kuntest, nixtieq infakkar li l-Avukat Ġenerali Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer kien diġà sostna, fil-konklużjonijiet tiegħu tat-13 ta’ Ġunju 2002 mogħtija fil-kawża Arsenal Football Club (sentenza ċċitata iktar ’il fuq fin-nota 35), li l-funzjonijiet l-oħra tat-trade mark kellhom ukoll jiġu protetti.

(43)  – Clause 4.2 of the agreement is worded ‘Licensee will charge Licensor for its services’.

(43) Ara L. Pahlow, ibidem (iċċitat iktar ’il fuq fin-nota 24), p. 236.

(44)  – See Scheunemann, K., Die .eu Domain – Registrierung und Streitbeilegung , Münster 2008, p. 115.

(44) Ara K. Scheunemann, Die .eu Domain - Registrierung und Streitbeilegung, Münster 2008, p. 115.

(45)  – In certain States (Argentina, Austria, Belgium, China, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Switzerland, Sweden, United Kingdom) domain names may be registered using the national ccTLD without there being any requirements or conditions as to location. According to the practice of those States, anyone, irrespective of nationality, residence or place of establishment, may register a domain name. The only restriction arises as a result of the prohibition on domain names considered immoral, which are either precluded from registration or liable to subsequent removal.

(45) F’ċerti Pajjiżi (l-Arġentina, l-Awstrija, il-Belġju, iċ-Ċina, id-Danimarka, il-Finlandja, il-Pajjiżi l-Baxxi, il-Polonja, ir-Russja, l-Isvizzera, l-Iżvezja, ir-Renju Unit), l-ismijiet ta’ dominju jistgħu jiġu reġistrati taħt is-ccTLDs nazzjonali mingħajr ma dan jkun marbut ma’ ċerti kundizzjonijiet bħal, pereżempju, fil-qasam ta’ post ta’ stabbiliment. Fil-prattika, kulħadd jista’ jirreġistra ismijiet ta’ dominju tkun xi tkun in-nazzjonalità, ir-residenza jew il-post ta’ negozju tiegħu. L-unika restrizzjoni tikkonsisti fil-projbizzjoni ta’ ismijiet ta’ dominju meqjusa immorali; għalhekk dawn tal-aħħar huma jew esklużi mir-reġistrazzjoni jew imħassra a posteriori .

The majority of national registries use a semi-restrictive system. Under that system, there is no requirement to supply documentary proof that a registered trade mark corresponds to the domain name. However, the category of persons entitled to apply is limited to those having a local presence or a territorial connection with the country indicated by the ccTLD. In relation to those requirements, differences arise. In certain States both nationality and residence in the country concerned are required, whereas in others, evidence of an establishment or commercial activity in the country concerned (Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Japan, Hungary, Malta, Norway, Singapore, USA) or in the European Union (Italy) is necessary or, at the very least, an agent established in the country concerned must be specified (Germany, Luxembourg).

Il-biċċa l-kbira ta’ reġistri nazzjonali jużaw sistema semi-restrittiva. Skont din tal-aħħar, ma huwiex meħtieġ li jiġu ppreżentati dokumenti li jistabbilixxu li trade mark reġistrata tikkorrispondi għal isem ta’ dominju. Min-naħa l-oħra, iċ-ċirku ta’ persuni li jistgħu jressqu applikazzjoni huwa limitat għal persuni li jistgħu juru preżenza lokali jew rabta territorjali mal-pajjiż tas-ccTLD. Il-kriterji użati f’dan il-kuntest huma differenti minn xulxin. F’ċerti pajjiżi huma rikjesti kemm in-nazzjonalità u kemm ir-residenza fil-pajjiż ikkonċernat; pajjiżi oħra jeżiġu prova tal-istabbiliment tal-persuna interessata u/jew ta’ attività ekonomika fil-pajjiż (il-Bulgarija, il-Kanada, ir-Repubblika Ċeka, il-Ġappun, l-Ungerija, Malta, in-Norveġja, Singapore, l-Istati Uniti) jew fl-Unjoni Ewropea (l-Italja), jew għallinqas li jinħatar aġent stabbilit fil-pajjiż inkwistjoni (il-Germanja, il-Lussemburgu). Reġistri nazzjonali oħra jawtorizzaw reġistrazzjoni biss jekk l-applikant jista’ juri rabta territorjali mal-pajjiż jew stabbiliment f’dan il-pajjiż u jekk jista’ juri permezz ta’ dokumenti li huwa proprjetarju ta’ dritt ta’ proprjetà intellettwali li jkun konformi mal-isem ta’ dominju (l-Awstralja). F’pajjiżi oħra, l-isem ta’ dominju jrid jidher f’kategoriji iktar speċifici ta’ drittijiet ta’ trade marks jew ta’ ismijiet, u l-applikant irid ikollu wkoll rabta reali mal-pajjiż (l-Irlanda). F’pajjiżi oħra, il-kundizzjonijiet restrittivi ta’ reġistrazzjoni japplikaw biss għar-reġistrazzjoni diretta taħt is-ccTLD filwaqt li r-reġistrazzjoni taħt l-isem ta’ dominju tal-ogħla livell hija suġġetta għal eżiġenzi inqas stretti jew għal ebda kundizzjonijiet (l-Indja, Hong Kong, Spanja). Ara, f’dan il-kuntest, T. Bettinger, “Registration requirements and dispute resolution”, f’Domain Name Law and Practice, Oxford 2005, p. 44.

Other national registries allow for registration only if the applicant has a territorial connection to the country or a place of business there and, in addition, can produce documentary evidence that it is the holder of an intellectual property right corresponding to the domain name (Australia). In other States, the domain name must be included in certain specific categories of trade marks and rights to a name and, in addition, the applicant must have an actual link to the country concerned (Ireland). In other States, restrictive registration conditions only apply to registrations under the ccTLD, whereas registrations under domains below the TLD are subject to less stringent requirements or are not subject to any requirements at all (India, Hong Kong, Spain). On this, see Bettinger, T., ‘Registration requirements and dispute resolution’, in Domain Name Law and Practice , Oxford 2005, p. 44.

(46) Ara D. Kipping, Das Recht der .eu-Domains, München 2008, p. 4, punt 11.

(46)  – See Kipping, D., Das Recht der .eu-Domains , Munich 2008, p. 4, point 11.

(47) Ara l-punt 30 tal-osservazzjonijiet tal-Kummissjoni.

(47)  – See paragraph 30 of the Commission’s observations.