This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2005/082/39
Case C-59/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) by order of that court of 2 December 2004 in the case of Siemens AG v VIPA Gesellschaft für Visualisierung und Prozeßautomatisierung mbH
Case C-59/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) by order of that court of 2 December 2004 in the case of Siemens AG v VIPA Gesellschaft für Visualisierung und Prozeßautomatisierung mbH
Case C-59/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) by order of that court of 2 December 2004 in the case of Siemens AG v VIPA Gesellschaft für Visualisierung und Prozeßautomatisierung mbH
SL C 82, 2.4.2005, p. 19–19
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
2.4.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 82/19 |
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) by order of that court of 2 December 2004 in the case of Siemens AG v VIPA Gesellschaft für Visualisierung und Prozeßautomatisierung mbH
(Case C-59/05)
(2005/C 82/39)
Language of the case: German
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) (Germany) of 2 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 10 February 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Siemens AG and VIPA Gesellschaft für Visualisierung und Prozeßautomatisierung mbH on the following questions concerning the interpretation of Article 3a(1)(g) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (1), as amended by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 (2):
1. |
Is the reputation of an ‘other distinguishing mark’ within the meaning of Article 3a(1)(g) of Directive 84/450/EEC taken advantage of unfairly where an advertiser adopts in identical form the core elements of a distinguishing mark which is known in trade circles (in this case, a system of order numbers) of a competitor, and refers to those identical elements in advertising? |
2. |
In determining whether unfair advantage is taken of a reputation for the purposes of Article 3(1)(g) of Directive 84/450/EC, is the benefit to the advertiser and the consumer procured by the adoption of the identical system a relevant factor? |