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 62017CN0044

Case C-44/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 27 January 2017 — The Scotch Whisky Association v Michael Klotz

OJ C 121, 18.4.2017, p. 14–15 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

18.4.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 27 January 2017 — The Scotch Whisky Association v Michael Klotz

(Case C-44/17)

(2017/C 121/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: The Scotch Whisky Association

Defendant: Michael Klotz

Questions referred

1.

Does ‘indirect commercial use’ of a registered geographical indication of a spirit drink in accordance with Article 16(a) of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 (1) require that the registered geographical indication be used in identical or phonetically and/or visually similar form, or is it sufficient that the disputed element evokes in the relevant public some kind of association with the registered geographical indication or the geographical area?

If the latter is sufficient: When determining whether there is any ‘indirect commercial use’, does the context in which the disputed element is embedded then also play a role, or can that context not counteract indirect commercial use of the registered geographical indication, even if the disputed element is accompanied by an indication of the true origin of the product?

2.

Does an ‘evocation’ of a registered geographical indication in accordance with Article 16(b) of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 require that there be a phonetic and/or visual similarity between the registered geographical indication and the disputed element, or is it sufficient that the disputed element evokes in the relevant public some kind of association with the registered geographical indication or the geographical area?

If the latter is sufficient: When determining whether there is any ‘evocation’, does the context in which the disputed element is embedded also play a role, or can that context not counteract any unlawful evocation of the registered geographical indication, even if the disputed element is accompanied by an indication of the true origin of the product?

3.

When determining whether there is any ‘other false or misleading indication’ in accordance with Article 16(c) of Regulation (EC) No 110/2008, does the context in which the disputed element is embedded play a role, or can that context not counteract any misleading indication, even if the disputed element is accompanied by an indication of the true origin of the product?

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1576/89; OJ 2008 L 39, p. 16.

Top