This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017CA0129
Case C-129/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd, Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe BV v Duma Forklifts NV, G.S. International BVBA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU trade mark — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 5 — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 9 — Trade mark proprietor entitled to oppose removal by a third party of all the signs identical to that trade mark and the affixing of new signs on goods identical to those for which the trade mark has been registered with a view to importing or placing them on the market in the European Economic Area (EEA))
Case C-129/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd, Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe BV v Duma Forklifts NV, G.S. International BVBA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU trade mark — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 5 — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 9 — Trade mark proprietor entitled to oppose removal by a third party of all the signs identical to that trade mark and the affixing of new signs on goods identical to those for which the trade mark has been registered with a view to importing or placing them on the market in the European Economic Area (EEA))
Case C-129/17: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd, Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe BV v Duma Forklifts NV, G.S. International BVBA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EU trade mark — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 5 — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 9 — Trade mark proprietor entitled to oppose removal by a third party of all the signs identical to that trade mark and the affixing of new signs on goods identical to those for which the trade mark has been registered with a view to importing or placing them on the market in the European Economic Area (EEA))
OJ C 328, 17.9.2018, p. 14–14
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 25/07/2018
- Date lodged:
- 13/03/2017
- Author:
- Court of Justice
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Authentic language:
- Dutch
- Type of procedure:
- Reference for a preliminary ruling
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Case affecting:
-
- Related EU case-law document 62017CJ0129
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
|
17.9.2018 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 328/14 |
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd, Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe BV v Duma Forklifts NV, G.S. International BVBA
(Case C-129/17) (1)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - EU trade mark - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 5 - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 9 - Trade mark proprietor entitled to oppose removal by a third party of all the signs identical to that trade mark and the affixing of new signs on goods identical to those for which the trade mark has been registered with a view to importing or placing them on the market in the European Economic Area (EEA)))
(2018/C 328/16)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Hof van beroep te Brussel
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellants: Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha Ltd, Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe BV
Respondents: Duma Forklifts NV, G.S. International BVBA
Operative part of the judgment
Article 5 of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks and Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a mark is entitled to oppose a third party, without its consent, removing all the signs identical to that mark and affixing other signs on products placed in the customs warehouse, as in the main proceedings, with a view to importing them or trading them in the EEA where they have never yet been marketed.
