This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2005/006/08
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 November 2004 in Case C-245/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus): Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation — Articles 2(1), 16(1) and 70 of the TRIPs Agreement — Trade marks — Scope of the proprietor's exclusive right to the trade mark — Alleged use of the sign as a trade name)
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 November 2004 in Case C-245/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus): Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation — Articles 2(1), 16(1) and 70 of the TRIPs Agreement — Trade marks — Scope of the proprietor's exclusive right to the trade mark — Alleged use of the sign as a trade name)
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 November 2004 in Case C-245/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus): Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation — Articles 2(1), 16(1) and 70 of the TRIPs Agreement — Trade marks — Scope of the proprietor's exclusive right to the trade mark — Alleged use of the sign as a trade name)
OJ C 6, 8.1.2005, p. 5–6
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
8.1.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 6/5 |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Grand Chamber)
of 16 November 2004
in Case C-245/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus): Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (1)
(Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation - Articles 2(1), 16(1) and 70 of the TRIPs Agreement - Trade marks - Scope of the proprietor's exclusive right to the trade mark - Alleged use of the sign as a trade name)
(2005/C 6/08)
Language of the case: Finnish
In Case C-245/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Korkein oikeus (Finland), made by decision of 3 July 2002, received at the Court on 5 July 2002, in the proceedings between Anheuser-Busch Inc and Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik - the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), A. Rosas and R. Silva de Lapuerta (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and K. Schiemann, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 November 2004, in which it has ruled:
|
1. |
The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement), as set out in Annex 1 C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation, approved on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994, applies in the event of a conflict between a trade mark and a sign alleged to infringe that trade mark where that conflict arose before the date of application of the TRIPs Agreement but continued beyond that date. |
|
2. |
A trade name may constitute a sign within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 16(1) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement). That provision is intended to confer on the proprietor of a trade mark the exclusive right to prevent a third party from using such a sign if the use in question prejudices or is liable to prejudice the functions of the trade mark, in particular its essential function of guaranteeing to consumers the origin of the goods. The exceptions provided for in Article 17 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement) are intended, inter alia, to enable a third party to use a sign which is identical or similar to a trade mark to indicate his trade name, provided that such use is in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters. |
|
3. |
A trade name which is not registered or established by use in the Member State in which the trade mark is registered and in which protection against the trade name in question is sought may be regarded as an existing prior right within the meaning of the third sentence of Article 16(1) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement) if the proprietor of the trade name has a right falling within the substantive and temporal scope of that agreement which arose prior to the trade mark with which it is alleged to conflict and which entitles him to use a sign identical or similar to that trade mark. |