Cases

This page is reserved for the highlight cases of the Court of Justice of European Union. List of Slovakian highlight cases is to be found on the EISi website.

Last revisited in January 2014. 

New Interesting Pending Cases

  • C-310/17 Levola Hengelo [taste of cheese as a copyrighted work]
  • C-129/17 Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha et Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe (de-branding and trademark use)
  • C-425/16 RAIMUND (bad faith objection in trademark litigation)
  • C-395/16 Doceram (functionality of designs)
  • Case C-223/15 Combit Software (perspective of the average consumer across Member States)
  • Case C-110/15 Nokia Italia (private copying levy)
  • Case C-169/15 Montis Design (Term Directive)
  • Case C-166/15 Aleksandrs Ranks and Jurijs Vasiļevičs (copyright exhaustion)
  • Case C-174/15 Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken v Stichting Leenrecht (library use)
  • Case C-163/16, Louboutin – shoe soles, signs solely comprising a shape, and judicial cobblers
  • Case C-654/15, Länsförsäkringar – no genuine use of a Community trade mark
  • Case C-24/16, Nintendo – jurisdiction by design
  • Case C-419/15, Thomas Philipps – licensees and standing
  • Case C-610/15, Stichting Brein – seeking website blocks to stop peer to peer technology
  • Ferring Lægemidler C-297/15 [repacking]
  • Stichting Brein C-610/15 [liability of a website operator & website blocking]
  • McFadden C-484/14 [open WiFi & copyright enforcement]
  • Tommy Hilfiger C-494/15 [accountability of an operator of an offline market place]
  • Stichting Brein C-527/15 [copyright & streaming]
  • Case A-3/15 [EU competence & The Marrakesh Treaty]
  • Manni C-398/15 [right be forgotten] 
  • Deroo-Blanquart C-310/15 [can pre-installed software (OS) constitute a misleading unfair commercial practice?]
  • Amazon Services Europe Sàrl C-618/15 [Art. 5(3) Brussels I. and accessibility of a website]


Older
  • Feng Shen Technology C-266/12 P [trade mark concept of the bad faith]
  • Mühlleitner C-190/11 [special jurisdiction for consumer contracts and contracts concluded on the Internet]
  • H C-46/13 [challenging more of the EU’s data retention Directive]
  • Schwarz C-291/12 - [Is EU’s biometric data Regulation 2252/2004 invalid because it is a disproportionate infringement of a person’s fundamental rights to privacy and data processing?]
  • Y.S. C-141/12 [data processing and access to data]
  • Copydan Båndkopi C-463/12 [fair renumeration for private copying, blank tape renumeration, copyright]
  • Spain v Council of the European Union C-274/11 [concerns new agreement on European union patents]
  • El Corte Inglés C-578/12 [trade mark confusion]
  • Italian Republic v Council of the European Union C-295/11 [concerns new agreement on European union patents]
  • Leidseplein Beheer C-65/12 [reputed marks]
  • Pi-Design AG v OHIM C-337/12, C-338/12, C-339/12, C-340/12 [sign which consists exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result]
  • Hauck C-205/13 [3D trade mark and functionality of the shape]
  • AstraZeneca C-617/12 [abuse of SPC protection]
  • Emrek C-218/12 [Jurisdiction over consumer contracts – Situation in which a trader operates an internet site ‘directed’ towards the Member State in which the consumer is resident – Need for a causal link between that activity and the conclusion of the contract by the consumer – Possible restriction of jurisdiction over consumer contracts to contracts which have been concluded at a distance]
  • Wikom Deutsche Telekabel C-416/12 [Right to broadcast works to the public – Concept of ‘communication to the public’ – Whether this includes rebroadcasting, by wire, of a work broadcast by wireless means]
  • Oberbank and others C-217/13 & C-218/13 [trade mark, color per se, evidence]
  • C More Entertainment C-279/13 [concerns an appeal against prosecution in Sweden where it was alleged that the Defendant had breached the rights of C More Entertainment to broadcast a webcast of two ice hockey matches and made them available to the public]
  • Martin Blomqvist C-98/13 [applicability of trade mark law and copyright law when a consumer deliberately buys a fake Rolex from a Chinese website]
  • BestWater C-348/13 [embedded videos and communication to the public]
  • Hauck C-205/13 [trade mark, copyright and shape of product]
  • Deckmyn en Vrijheidsfonds C-201/13 [concept of 'parody' in copyright law]
  • Karen Millen Fashions C-345/13 [design law - women's garments - informed user]
  • Huawei-ZTE [standard essential patents and injunctions]
  • Art & Allposters International C-419/13 [exhaustion doctrine in the copyright law and subsequent changes to goods]
  • RLvS C-391/12 [unfair commercial practicies]
  • BKK Mobil Oil C-59/12 [is public entity a trader for the purposes of unfair commercial practicies directive] 
  • Apple C-421/13 [Art. 2 TMD]
  • Netto Marken Discount C-420/13 [Art. 2 TMD] 
  • Grund C-458/13 [case concerning an adaptor designed to circumvent copyright protection on a handheld video game console]
  • Dimensione C-516/13 [interpretation of Article 4(1) of InfoSoc - distribution right] 
  • Kainz C-45/13 [where is the harm in putting a defective bicycle into circulation?]
  • Honda C-535/13 [parallel import of automotive products on the basis of the international exhaustion of the right conferred by the trade mark]
  • Asthellas Pharma C-661/13 [Bolar exception] 
  • Christie's France C-41/14 [resale right and contractual arrangements]
  • Iron & Smith C-125/14 [relevant territory for a reputation of a CTM for the purposes of infringement analysis] 
  • Weltimmo C-230/14 [applicable data protections laws]
  • Schrems C-362/14 [compatibility of data protection safe harbour with the EU Charter]
  • EGEDA C-470/14 [private copying]
  • XY [punitive damages]
  • Verlag Estebauer C-490/14 [a copyright dispute relating to map data owned by the State of Bavaria and allegedly exploited by a company which produces maps and guides for cyclists, inline skaters and mountain bikers]
Domain Name Cases
  • Pie Optiek C-376/11 [here] concerns .eu domain names.

Copyright

a) subject matter

b) blank tapes fair compensation

c) distribution right (art. 4(1) InfoSoc)
d) right of communication to the public  (art. 3(1) InfoSoc)
e) other
  • Systran SA and Systran Luxembourg v Commission C-103/11 [here] concerns copyright infringement by Commission 
  • Nintendo C-355/12 [digital rights management]
  • Svensson e.a. C-466/12 [linking and embeding, copyright]
  • OSA C-351/12 [teritorrial monopoly of collective societies, communication to the public]
  • UPC Telekabel Wien C-314/12 [website blocking, downloading from illegal sources] 
  • Technische Universität Darmstadt v Eugen Ulmer KG C-117/13  [libraries and copyright exceptions]
f) sui generis database right
Conflict of Laws
Consumer Protection
  • Henkel C-167/00 - [art. 5(3) Brusel I. and consumer protection disputes]
  • Heine C-511/08 - [Distance contracts – Right of withdrawal – Consumer charged with the cost of delivering the goods]
  • Pereničová a Perenič C-453/10 - [Unfair commercial practicies vs. nulity of the contract]
  • Deutsches Weintor C-544/10 - [Wine may not be promoted as being ‘easily digestible’. Such a description, indicating reduced acidity levels, constitutes a health claim that is prohibited in relation to alcoholic beverages.] 
  • Purely Creative and Others v Office of Fair Trading C-428/11 [Traders’ aggressive practices which give a false impression to the consumer that he has already won a prize, while he has to incur a certain cost in order to receive it, are prohibited] 
  • CHS Tour Services C-435/11 [If a commercial practice turns out to mislead consumers, does it matter whether the trader has done what he could to prevent that from happening?]
  • Lastminute.com C-478/12 [Jurisdiction - supplier of services used by the travel agency established in the Member State where the consumer is domiciled]
  • RLvS C-391/12 [Misleading omissions in editorial-style advertising – Legislation of a Member State prohibiting a publication for remuneration which does not mention that it is an ‘advertisement’]
  • Backaldrin Österreich C-409/12 [The Kornspitz Company – when the name of a bread roll is common for consumers but uncommon for traders] pending
  • European Commission v Czech Republic C-37/11 [using 'butter' laber] pending

Privacy Cases
  • Eifert C-92/09 a C-93/09 - [invalidity of Union law die to breach of privacy]
  • Michael Schwarz C-291/12 - [Is EU’s biometric data Regulation 2252/2004 invalid because it is a disproportionate infringement of a person’s fundamental rights to privacy and data processing?]
  • Digital Rights Ireland C-293/12 - [validy of data retention directive]
  • Google Spain and Google C-131/12 [right to be forgotten]
  • IPI C-473/12 [exception from EU data processing for private detectives]
  • Willems C-446/12 [Forced fingerprints for passports, validity of Regulation in the light of Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights]
  • Kooistra C-447/12 [Forced fingerprints for passports, validity of Regulation in the light of Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights]
  • Roest C-448/12 [Forced fingerprints for passports, validity of Regulation in the light of Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights]
  • van Luijk C-449/12  [Forced fingerprints for passports, validity of Regulation in the light of Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights]
  • Y.S. C‑141/12 und C‑372/12 [the concept of personal data, and the scope of right of access to personal data - commentary];
  • Digital Rights Ireland C-293/12 [data retention]
  • Seitlinger and others C-594/12 [data retention]
  • Google Spain and Google C-131/12 [right to be forgotten]

Trade Marks & Competition Law
  • Yves Rocher C-126/91
  • HAG I C-192/73
  • HAG II C-10/89
  • TERRANOVA/TERRAPIN C-119/75
  • Merz & Krell C-517/99 
  • Colloseum Holding C-12/12 [red flagging jeans, use and composite marks in trade mark law]
  • Leno Merken C-149/11 [here] concerns a dispute relating to the territorial scope and genuine use of a Community word mark
 a) keyword advertising

b) likelihood of confusion
c) trade mark use

d) other



Internet Cases
  • Promusicae C-275/06 [ISP´s duty to disclose IP adress in a civil dispute]
  • Tele 2 C-557/07 [ISP´s duty to disclose IP adress in a civil dispute]
  • Bonnier Audio C-461/10 [ISP´s duty to disclose IP adress in civil dispute]
  • Google France [keyword advertising]
  • L'Oreal v. eBay C-324/09 [hosting safe harbour, injunction relief against intermediaries, application of trade mark law on the internet]
  • Interflora C-323/09 [keyword advertising]
  • BergSpechte C-278/08 [OGH: 17 Ob 3/10f]
  • Portakabin C-558/08
  • Eis.de C-91/09 [BGH: I ZR 125/07]
  • Sabam C-360/10 [social networking site and injunctions]
  • Scarlet Extended C-70/10 [scope of injunction against the intermediary] pending
  • eDate Advertising C-509/09 [country of origin principle in e-commerce directive] pending
  • Cornelia Buschmann C-292/10 - [country of origin principle as conflicts of law]
  • Lindquist C-101/01 [processing of personal data to third country by mere access to website]
  • Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmétique C-439/09 [internet sale clause]
  • Bundesverband C-298/07 - [telephon number and impressum]
  • Heinrich Heine C-511/08 - [costs of returning the goods]
  • Ker-Optika bt C‑108/09 - [ban on internet sale of contact lenses]
  • Heinrich Heine C-511/08 [costs of returning internet bought goods]
  • Gambelli C-243/01 - [internet gambling]
  • Mediakabel C-89/04 - [internet gambling]
  • Liga Portuguesa a Bwin C-42/07 - [internet gambling]
  • Sjöberg C-448/08 - [internet gambling]
  • Ladbrookes Betting C-258/08 - [internet gambling]
  • Dickinger a Ömer C-347/09 - [internet gambling]
  • Hotel Alpenhof C-144/09 ["directing" to consumer´s country]
  • Pammer C-585/08 ["directing" to consumer´s country]
  • Yusufi C-190/11 - [The fact that the consumer travelled to the trader’s Member State to sign the contract does not prevent the courts of the consumer’s Member State from having jurisdiction in case the company directs its activities to that Member State]
  • Emrek v Sabranovic C-218/12 [special jurisdiction for consumer contracts and contracts concluded on the Internet]
    Mühlleitner C-190/11 [special jurisdiction for consumer contracts and contracts concluded on the Internet]
  • Football Dataco v. Sportradar C-173/11 - [the place of a database re-utilization on the Internet]
  • Infoweb C-202/12 [the place of a database re-utilization on the Internet]
  • Painer C-145/10 - [art. 6 Brusel I.]
  • Pinckley C-170/12 - [art. 5(3) Brusel I. and copyright dispute]
  • Pie Optiek C-376/11 [here] concerns .eu domain names.
  • UsedSoft C-128/11 [here]  the legal protection of computer programmes, exhaustion of rights and the definition of 'lawful acquirer'.
  • Content Services C‑49/11 [Consumer protection – Distance contracts – Consumer information – Information given or received – Durable medium – Meaning – Hyperlink on the website of the supplier – Right of withdrawal]
  • UPC Telekabel Wien C-314/12 [website blocking]
  • Digital Rights Ireland C-293/12 [data retention]

Online Gambling
  • Dickinger a Ömer C-347/09 - [internet gambling]
  • Gambelli C-243/01 - [internet gambling]
  • Mediakabel C-89/04 - [internet gambling]
  • Liga Portuguesa a Bwin C-42/07 - [internet gambling]
  • Sjöberg C-448/08 - [internet gambling]
  • Ladbrookes Betting C-258/08 - [internet gambling]
  • HIT hoteli v Bundesminister für Finanzen C-176/11 - [ban on advertising of foreign casinos is not contrary to EU law]
  • Pfleger C-390/12 [on-line fruit machines, proportionality and the EU freedom to provide services in Austria]

Designs

Telecommunication Law Cases


Other Cases
  • Atlas Transport GmbH v OHIM C-406/11 [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • United States Polo Association v OHIM C-327/11 [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • Maurice Emram v OHIM C-354/11 [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • Daiichi Sankyo Company Limited C-414/11 [here] patents and TRIPS agreement.
  • Lancôme parfums C-334/11 [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • Novartis AG v Actavis UK Ltd C-422/11 [here] concerns supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products.
  • Smart Technologies ULC v OHIM C-311/11 [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • Deichmann SE v OHIM C-307/11 [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • Alder Capital Ltd v OHIM C-328/11 [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • Longevity Health Products, Inc V OHIM C-222/11 [hereconcerns the CTMR.
  • XXXLUTZ MARKEN GMBH v OHIM C-306/11 [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • Bericap Záródástechnikai Bt v Plastinnova C-180/11 [here] concerns utility models.
  • Yorma AG v OHIM C 191/11 P [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • Formula One Licensing BV v OHIM C-196/11 [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • August Storck v OHIM C-96/11 [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • Fidelio v OHIM C-87/11P [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • Daiichi Sankyo C-6/11 concerns correct criteria for deciding whether a product is "protected by a basic patent in force"
  • L'Oreal SA v OHIM C-100/11 [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG v OHIM C-98/11 [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • Longevity Health Products, Inc v OHIM C-81/11 [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • DTL Corporation S.L. C-67/11 [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del sel. C-101/11 [here] concerns the CDR.
  • OHIM C-102/11 [here] concerns the CDR.
  • Strigl and others C-90/11 & C91/11 [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • Tresplain Investments Ltd v OHIM C-76/11P [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • Neurim Pharmaceuticals C-130/11 [here] concerns SPCs.
  • University of Queensland C-630/10 [here] concerns SPCs.
  • Quinta do Portal v OHIM C-541/10 [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • Gauselmann GmbH v OHIM C-532/10 [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • 4care AG v OHIM C-535/10 [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • Hans-Peter Wilfer v OHIM C-546/10 [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • MPDV Mikrolab GmbH C-536/10 [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • X Technology Swiss GmbH v OHIM C-429/10 [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • Grain Millers, Inc v OHIM C-447/10 [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • Félix Muñoz Arraiza v OHIM C-388/10 [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • Herhof-Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH v OHIM C-418/10 [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • Freixenet, SA v OHIM C-345/10 [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • Ravensburger AG v OHIM C-370/10 [here] concerns the CTMR.
  • Georgetown University C-422/10 [here] concerns patents.