This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015CN0169
Case C-169/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Benelux Gerechtshof lodged on 13 April 2015 — Montis Design BV v Goossens Meubelen BV
Case C-169/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Benelux Gerechtshof lodged on 13 April 2015 — Montis Design BV v Goossens Meubelen BV
Case C-169/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Benelux Gerechtshof lodged on 13 April 2015 — Montis Design BV v Goossens Meubelen BV
IO C 228, 13.7.2015, p. 4–4
(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:
- 13/04/2015
- Date lodged:
- 13/04/2015
- Author:
- An Chúirt Bhreithiúnais
- Form:
- Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
- Authentic language:
- Ollainnis
- Type of procedure:
- Tarchur le haghaidh réamhrialú
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Case affecting:
-
- Submits a preliminary question about 31993L0098 airteagal 10
- Submits a preliminary question about 31993L0098 airteagal 13 mír 1
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
- EUROVOC descriptor:
|
13.7.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 228/4 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Benelux Gerechtshof lodged on 13 April 2015 — Montis Design BV v Goossens Meubelen BV
(Case C-169/15)
(2015/C 228/04)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Benelux Gerechtshof
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Montis Design BV
Defendant: Goossens Meubelen BV
Questions referred
|
1) |
Is the term of protection referred to in Article 10, in conjunction with Article 13(1), of Directive 93/98/EEC (the Term of Protection Directive) (1) applicable to rights of copyright that were originally protected by national copyright law but which lapsed before 1 July 1995 on the ground that a formal condition had not been satisfied (in due time), more specifically because a maintenance declaration, as referred to in Article 21(3) of the Uniform Benelux Law on Designs and Models (old version), had not been filed (in due time)? |
|
2) |
If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Must the Term of Protection Directive be construed as precluding a rule of national legislation under which the copyright in a work of applied art that lapsed before 1 July 1995 on the ground that a formal condition had not been satisfied is deemed to have lapsed permanently? |
|
3) |
If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative: If, under national legislation, the copyright in question is to be considered to revive or to be revived at a certain time, from what date does such revival occur? |
(1) Council Directive 93/98/EEC of 29 October 1993 harmonising the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights (OJ 1993 L 290, p. 9), now Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the terms of protection of copyright and certain related rights (codified version) (OJ 2006 L 372, p. 12).
