This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62001CJ0040
Judgment of the Court of 11 March 2003. # Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: Hoge Raad der Nederlanden - Netherlands. # Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 12(1) - Revocation of trade mark owner's rights - Concept of genuine use of a trade mark - Maintenance of goods already sold and sales of replacement parts and accessories. # Case C-40/01.
A Bíróság március 11.-i ítélete: 2003.
Ansul BV kontra Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV.
Előzetes döntéshozatal iránti kérelem: Hoge Raad der Nederlanden - Hollandia.
89/104/EGK irányelv.
C-40/01. sz. ügy
A Bíróság március 11.-i ítélete: 2003.
Ansul BV kontra Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV.
Előzetes döntéshozatal iránti kérelem: Hoge Raad der Nederlanden - Hollandia.
89/104/EGK irányelv.
C-40/01. sz. ügy
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2003:145
*P1* Hoge Raad, 1e kamer, arrest van 08/10/2004 (C99/080 HR)
- Bijblad bij de industriële eigendom 2005 p.150-157
- Intellectuele eigendom & Reclamerecht 2005 p.43-45
«(Trade marks – Directive 89/104/EEC – Article 12(1) – Revocation of trade mark owner's rights – Concept of genuine use of a trade mark – Maintenance of goods already sold and sales of replacement parts and accessories)»
|
I - 0000 | |||
|
I - 0000 | |||
(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 12(1))
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
11 March 2003 (1)
((Trade marks – Directive 89/104/EEC – Article 12(1) – Revocation of trade mark owner's rights – Concept of genuine use of a trade mark – Maintenance of goods already sold and sales of replacement parts and accessories))
In Case C-40/01, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Ansul BVand
Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV, on the interpretation of Article 12(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1),THE COURT,,
after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:
having regard to the Report for the Hearing,
after hearing the oral observations of Ansul BV and the Commission at the hearing on 4 June 2002,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 2 July 2002,
gives the following
On those grounds,
THE COURT,
in answer to the questions referred to it by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of 26 January 2001, hereby rules:
Rodríguez Iglesias |
Puissochet |
Wathelet |
Timmermans |
Gulmann |
La Pergola |
Jann |
Skouris |
Macken |
Colneric |
von Bahr |
|
R. Grass |
G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias |
Registrar |
President |