Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62015CA0223

Case C-223/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — combit Software GmbH v Commit Business Solutions Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — European Union trade mark — Unitary character — Finding of a likelihood of confusion in respect of only part of the European Union — Territorial scope of the prohibition referred to in Article 102 of that regulation)

OJ C 419, 14.11.2016, p. 19–20 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

14.11.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/19


Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — combit Software GmbH v Commit Business Solutions Ltd

(Case C-223/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - European Union trade mark - Unitary character - Finding of a likelihood of confusion in respect of only part of the European Union - Territorial scope of the prohibition referred to in Article 102 of that regulation))

(2016/C 419/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: combit Software GmbH

Defendant: Commit Business Solutions Ltd

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(2), Article 9(1)(b) and Article 102(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that, where an EU trade mark court finds that the use of a sign creates a likelihood of confusion with an EU trade mark in one part of the European Union whilst not creating such a likelihood in another part thereof, that court must conclude that there is an infringement of the exclusive right conferred by that trade mark and issue an order prohibiting the use in question for the entire area of the European Union with the exception of the part in respect of which there has been found to be no likelihood of confusion.


(1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


Top