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 C2005/082/39

Case C-59/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) by order of that court of 2 December 2004 in the case of Siemens AG v VIPA Gesellschaft für Visualisierung und Prozeßautomatisierung mbH

OB C 82, 2.4.2005, p. 19–19 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

2.4.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/19

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) by order of that court of 2 December 2004 in the case of Siemens AG v VIPA Gesellschaft für Visualisierung und Prozeßautomatisierung mbH

(Case C-59/05)

(2005/C 82/39)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) (Germany) of 2 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 10 February 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Siemens AG and VIPA Gesellschaft für Visualisierung und Prozeßautomatisierung mbH on the following questions concerning the interpretation of Article 3a(1)(g) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (1), as amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 (2):

1.

Is the reputation of an ‘other distinguishing mark’ within the meaning of Article 3a(1)(g) of Directive 84/450/EEC taken advantage of unfairly where an advertiser adopts in identical form the core elements of a distinguishing mark which is known in trade circles (in this case, a system of order numbers) of a competitor, and refers to those identical elements in advertising?

2.

In determining whether unfair advantage is taken of a reputation for the purposes of Article 3(1)(g) of Directive 84/450/EC, is the benefit to the advertiser and the consumer procured by the adoption of the identical system a relevant factor?

(1)  OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17.

(2)  OJ 1997 L 290, p. 18.

Top