Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62010CN0046

Case C-46/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark), lodged on 28 January 2010 — Viking Gas A/S v BP Gas A/S

OJ C 80, 27.3.2010, p. 20–21 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

27.3.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 80/20

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark), lodged on 28 January 2010 — Viking Gas A/S v BP Gas A/S

(Case C-46/10)

2010/C 80/35

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Viking Gas A/S

Respondent: BP Gas A/S

Questions referred

1.

Is Article 5, in conjunction with Article 7, of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks to be interpreted in such a way that company B is guilty of an infringement of a trade mark if it fills gas bottles which originate from company A with gas which it then sells, where the following circumstances apply:

1.

A sells gas in so-called composite bottles with a special shape, which is registered as such, that is to say, as a shape trade mark, under a Danish trade mark and an EC trade mark. A is not the proprietor of those shape trade marks but has an exclusive licence to use them in Denmark and has the right to take legal proceedings in respect of infringements in Denmark.

2.

On first purchase of a composite bottle filled with gas from one of A’s dealers the consumer also pays for the bottle, which thus becomes the consumer’s property.

3.

A refills the composite bottles by a procedure under which the consumer goes to one of A’s dealers and, on payment for the gas, has an empty composite bottle exchanged for a similar one filled by A.

4.

B’s business consists in filling gas into bottles, including composite bottles covered by the shape trade mark referred to in 1., by a procedure under which consumers go to a dealer associated with B and, on payment for the gas, can have an empty composite bottle exchanged for a similar one filled by B.

5.

When the composite bottles in question are filled with gas by B, adhesive labels are attached to the bottles indicating that the filling was undertaken by B?

2.

If it may be assumed that consumers will generally receive the impression that there is an association between B and A, is this to be regarded as significant for the purpose of answering Question 1?

3.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative, may the outcome be different if the composite bottles — apart from being covered by the shape trade mark referred to — also feature (are imprinted with) the registered figurative and/or word mark of A, which is still visible irrespective of any adhesive labels affixed by B?

4.

If either Question 1 or Question 3 is answered in the affirmative, may the outcome be different if it is assumed that, with regard to other types of bottle which are not covered by the shape trade mark referred to but which feature A’s word and/or figurative mark, A has for many years accepted, and continues to accept, the refilling of the bottles by other companies?

5.

If either Question 1 or Question 3 is answered in the affirmative, may the outcome be different if the consumer himself goes to B directly and there:

(a)

on payment for the gas, obtains, in exchange for an empty composite bottle, a similar one filled by B, or

(b)

on payment, has a composite bottle which he has brought filled with gas?

(1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.

Top