# C_2005257EN.01000401.xml

| 15.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 257/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/4

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Domstolen by order of that court of 9 August 2005 in Nokia Corporation v Joacim Wärdell

(Case C-316/05)

(2005/C 257/07)

Language of the case: Swedish

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Högsta Domstolen (Supreme Court) of 9 August 2005, received at the Court Registry on 16 August 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Nokia Corporation and Joacim Wärdell on the following questions:

| 1. | Is the condition relating to special reasons in the first sentence of Article 98(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark to be interpreted as meaning that a court which finds that the defendant has infringed a Community trade mark may, irrespective of the other circumstances, refrain from issuing a specific prohibition of further infringement if the court considers that the risk of further infringement is not obvious or is otherwise merely limited? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the condition relating to special reasons in the first sentence of Article 98(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark to be interpreted as meaning that a court which finds that the defendant has infringed a Community trade mark may, irrespective of the other circumstances, refrain from issuing a specific prohibition of further infringement if the court considers that the risk of further infringement is not obvious or is otherwise merely limited?

| 2. | Is the condition relating to special reasons in the first sentence of Article 98(1) of the Regulation on the Community trade mark to be interpreted as meaning that a court which finds that the defendant has infringed a Community trade mark may, even if there is no such ground for refraining from issuing a prohibition of further infringement as contemplated in Question 1, refrain from issuing such a prohibition on the grounds that it is clear that a further infringement is covered by a statutory general prohibition of infringement under national law and that a penalty may be imposed on the defendant if he commits a further infringement intentionally or with gross negligence? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the condition relating to special reasons in the first sentence of Article 98(1) of the Regulation on the Community trade mark to be interpreted as meaning that a court which finds that the defendant has infringed a Community trade mark may, even if there is no such ground for refraining from issuing a prohibition of further infringement as contemplated in Question 1, refrain from issuing such a prohibition on the grounds that it is clear that a further infringement is covered by a statutory general prohibition of infringement under national law and that a penalty may be imposed on the defendant if he commits a further infringement intentionally or with gross negligence?

| 3. | If the answer to Question 2 is no, must specific measures, by which a prohibition is for example coupled with a penalty, be taken in such a case to ensure that the prohibition is complied with, even where it is clear that a further infringement is covered by a statutory general prohibition of infringement under national law and that a penalty may be imposed on the defendant if he commits a further infringement intentionally or with gross negligence? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to Question 2 is no, must specific measures, by which a prohibition is for example coupled with a penalty, be taken in such a case to ensure that the prohibition is complied with, even where it is clear that a further infringement is covered by a statutory general prohibition of infringement under national law and that a penalty may be imposed on the defendant if he commits a further infringement intentionally or with gross negligence?

| 4. | If the answer to Question 3 is yes, does this apply even where the conditions for adopting such a specific measure in the case of a corresponding infringement of a national trade mark would not be regarded as fulfilled? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to Question 3 is yes, does this apply even where the conditions for adopting such a specific measure in the case of a corresponding infringement of a national trade mark would not be regarded as fulfilled?

---