Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62008CN0043

    Case C-43/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 8 February 2008 — Trade mark case: ZVS Zeitungsvertrieb Stuttgart GmbH v President of the German Patent- und Markenamt

    OJ C 107, 26.4.2008, p. 12–13 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    26.4.2008   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 107/12


    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 8 February 2008 — Trade mark case: ZVS Zeitungsvertrieb Stuttgart GmbH v President of the German Patent- und Markenamt

    (Case C-43/08)

    (2008/C 107/19)

    Language of the case: German

    Referring court

    Bundespatentgericht

    Parties to the main proceedings

    ZVS Zeitungsvertrieb Stuttgart GmbH and President of the German Patent- und Markenamt

    Questions referred

    1.

    Does Article 3 of Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 (1) require equal treatment, with regard to the registration of trade marks, of applicants in competition with one another in order to safeguard equality of opportunity in matters of competition?

    2.

    If the answer is ‘yes’, is the national court required to investigate specific indications of unequal treatment which distorts competition and, in so doing, to take account, in its analysis, of earlier decisions of the competent authority in similar cases?

    3.

    If the answer is ‘yes’, is the national court required to take account of the prohibition of discrimination having the effect of distorting competition when interpreting and applying Article 3 of Directive 89/104 if it has established discrimination of that nature?

    4.

    If Questions 1 to 3 are answered in the negative, in order to prevent distortion of competition, must it be possible under national legislation for the national authority to be placed under an obligation to initiate, of its own motion, an action for the annulment of trade marks which have previously been wrongly registered?


    (1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.


    Top