Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document C2006/331/24

    Case C-316/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Domstolen — Sweden) — Nokia Corp. v Joacim Wärdell (Community trade mark — Article 98(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Infringement or threatened infringement — Obligation of a Community trade mark court to issue an order prohibiting a third party from proceeding with such acts — Definition of special reasons for not issuing such a prohibition — Obligation of a Community trade mark court to take such measures as are aimed at ensuring that such a prohibition is complied with — National legislation laying down a general prohibition of infringement or threatened infringement coupled with penalties)

    OJ C 331, 30.12.2006, p. 14–15 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    30/12/2006; Date of publication
    Author:
    Court of Justice
    Form:
    Judicial information

    30.12.2006   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 331/14

    Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Domstolen — Sweden) — Nokia Corp. v Joacim Wärdell

    (Case C-316/05) (1)

    (Community trade mark - Article 98(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Infringement or threatened infringement - Obligation of a Community trade mark court to issue an order prohibiting a third party from proceeding with such acts - Definition of ‘special reasons’ for not issuing such a prohibition - Obligation of a Community trade mark court to take such measures as are aimed at ensuring that such a prohibition is complied with - National legislation laying down a general prohibition of infringement or threatened infringement coupled with penalties)

    (2006/C 331/24)

    Language of the case: Swedish

    Referring court

    Högsta Domstolen (Sweden)

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: Nokia Corp.

    Defendant: Joacim Wärdell

    Re:

    Reference for a preliminary ruling — Högsta Domstolen — Interpretation of Article 98(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) — Obligation of a Community trade mark court which finds that the defendant has infringed or threatens to infringe a Community trade mark, to issue, save where there are specific reasons for not doing so, an order prohibiting him from further infringements or threats to infringe — National legislation already containing a general prohibition of infringement and providing for penalties in the case of further such acts

    Operative part of the judgment

    1.

    Article 98(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark is to be interpreted as meaning that the mere fact that the risk of further infringement or threatened infringement of a Community trade mark is not obvious or is otherwise merely limited does not constitute a special reason for a Community trade mark court not to issue an order prohibiting the defendant from proceeding with those acts.

    2.

    Article 98(1) of Regulation No 40/94 is to be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the national law includes a general prohibition of the infringement of Community trade marks and provides for the possibility of penalising further infringement or threatened infringement, whether intentional or due to gross negligence, does not constitute a special reason for a Community trade mark court not to issue an order prohibiting the defendant from proceeding with those acts.

    3.

    Article 98(1) of Regulation No 40/94 is to be interpreted as meaning that a Community trade mark court which has issued an order prohibiting the defendant from proceeding with infringement or threatened infringement of a Community trade mark is required to take such measures, in accordance with its national law, as are aimed at ensuring that that prohibition is complied with, even if the national law includes a general prohibition of infringement of Community trade marks and provides for the possibility of penalising further infringement or threatened infringement, whether intentional or due to gross negligence.

    4.

    Article 98(1) of Regulation 40/94 is to be interpreted as meaning that a Community trade mark court which has issued an order prohibiting the defendant from proceeding with infringement or threatened infringement of a Community trade mark is required to take, from among the measures provided for under national law, such as are aimed at ensuring that that prohibition is complied with, even if those measures could not, under that law, be taken in the case of a corresponding infringement of a national trade mark.

    (1)  OJ C 257, 15.10.2005.

    Top