EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62002CJ0100
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 January 2004. # Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. v Putsch GmbH. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bundesgerichtshof - Germany. # Directive 89/104/EEC - Limitation of the effects of a trade mark in relation to indications concerning geographical origin - Use of a geographical indication as a trade mark as an element of use in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters. # Case C-100/02.
Rozsudek Soudního dvora (pátého senátu) ze dne 7. ledna 2004.
Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. proti Putsch GmbH.
Žádost o rozhodnutí o předběžné otázce: Bundesgerichtshof - Německo.
Věc C-100/02.
Rozsudek Soudního dvora (pátého senátu) ze dne 7. ledna 2004.
Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. proti Putsch GmbH.
Žádost o rozhodnutí o předběžné otázce: Bundesgerichtshof - Německo.
Věc C-100/02.
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2004:11
«(Directive 89/104/EEC – Limitation of the effects of a trade mark in relation to indications concerning geographical origin – Use of a geographical indication as a trade mark as an element of use in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters)»
|
||||
|
||||
(Council Directive 89/104, Arts 5(1)(b) and 6(1)(b))
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)
7 January 2004 (1)
((Directive 89/104/EEC – Limitation of the effects of a trade mark in relation to indications concerning geographical origin – Use of a geographical indication as a trade mark as an element of use in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters))
In Case C-100/02, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co.and
Putsch GmbH, on the interpretation of Article 6(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1),THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,
after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:
having regard to the Report for the Hearing,
after hearing the oral observations of Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co., represented by A. Ebert-Weidenfeller; Putsch GmbH, represented by P. Neuwald; the Greek Government, represented by G. Skiani and G. Alexaki; the United Kingdom Government, represented by K. Manji, acting as Agent, and D. Alexander, and the Commission, represented by R. Raith, at the hearing on 20 May 2003,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 10 July 2003,
gives the following
On those grounds,
THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),
in answer to the questions referred to it by the Bundesgerichtshof by order of 7 February 2002, hereby rules: Article 6(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that, where there exists a likelihood of aural confusion between a word mark registered in one Member State and an indication, in the course of trade, of the geographical origin of a product originating in another Member State, the proprietor of the trade mark may, pursuant to Article 5 of Directive 89/104, prevent the use of the indication of geographical origin only if that use is not in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters. It is for the national court to carry out an overall assessment of all the circumstances of the particular case in that regard.
Jann |
Timmermans |
Edward |
R. Grass |
V. Skouris |
Registrar |
President |