This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012CN0479
Case C-479/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 25 October 2012 — H. Gautzsch Großhandel GmbH & Co. KG v Münchener Boulevard Möbel Joseph Duna GmbH
Case C-479/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 25 October 2012 — H. Gautzsch Großhandel GmbH & Co. KG v Münchener Boulevard Möbel Joseph Duna GmbH
Case C-479/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 25 October 2012 — H. Gautzsch Großhandel GmbH & Co. KG v Münchener Boulevard Möbel Joseph Duna GmbH
OJ C 32, 2.2.2013, p. 3–3
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
2.2.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 32/3 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 25 October 2012 — H. Gautzsch Großhandel GmbH & Co. KG v Münchener Boulevard Möbel Joseph Duna GmbH
(Case C-479/12)
2013/C 32/03
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Bundesgerichtshof
Parties to the main proceedings
Defendant and appellant on a point of law: H. Gautzsch Großhandel GmbH & Co. KG
Applicant and respondent on a point of law: Münchener Boulevard Möbel Joseph Duna GmbH
Questions referred
1. |
Is Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the normal course of business, a design could reasonably have become known to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the European Union, in the case where images of the design were distributed to traders? |
2. |
Is the first sentence of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 to be interpreted as meaning that a design could not reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the European Union, even though it was disclosed to third parties without any explicit or implicit conditions of confidentiality, in the case where
|
3. |
|
4. |
|
5. |
|
6. |
Is Article 89(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 to be interpreted as meaning that claims for destruction, disclosure of information and damages by reason of infringement of an unregistered Community design which are pursued in relation to the entirety of the European Union are subject to the law of the Member States in which the acts of infringement were committed? |
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).