# C_2014253EN.01000601.xml

| 4.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 253/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 253/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Coty Germany GmbH, formerly Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH v First Note Perfumes NV

(Case C-360/12) (1)

1

((Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulations (EC) No 40/94 and No 44/2001 - Community trade mark - Article 93(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - International jurisdiction relating to infringement - Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred - Cross-border participation by several persons in a single unlawful act))

2014/C 253/08

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Coty Germany GmbH, formerly Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: First Note Perfumes NV

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 93(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) and of Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Community trade mark — International jurisdiction in matters of infringement — Act committed in one Member State consisting of assistance in an infringement carried out in the territory of a second Member State — Determination of the place where the harmful event occurred

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The concept of ‘the Member State in which the act of infringement has been committed’ in Article 93(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a sale and delivery of a counterfeit product in one Member State, followed by a resale by the purchaser in another Member State, that provision does not allow jurisdiction to be established to hear an infringement action against the original seller who did not himself act in the Member State where the court seised is situated; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The concept of ‘the Member State in which the act of infringement has been committed’ in Article 93(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a sale and delivery of a counterfeit product in one Member State, followed by a resale by the purchaser in another Member State, that provision does not allow jurisdiction to be established to hear an infringement action against the original seller who did not himself act in the Member State where the court seised is situated;

| 2. | Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an allegation of unlawful comparative advertising or unfair imitation of a sign protected by a Community trade mark, prohibited by the law against unfair competition (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb) of the Member State in which the court seised is situated, that provision does not allow jurisdiction to be established, on the basis of the place where the event giving rise to the damage resulting from the infringement of that law occurred, for a court in that Member State where the presumed perpetrator who is sued there did not himself act there. By contrast, in such a case, that provision does allow jurisdiction to be established, on the basis of the place of occurrence of damage, to hear an action for damages based on that national law brought against a person established in another Member State and who is alleged to have committed, in that State, an act which caused or may cause damage within the jurisdiction of that court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an allegation of unlawful comparative advertising or unfair imitation of a sign protected by a Community trade mark, prohibited by the law against unfair competition (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb) of the Member State in which the court seised is situated, that provision does not allow jurisdiction to be established, on the basis of the place where the event giving rise to the damage resulting from the infringement of that law occurred, for a court in that Member State where the presumed perpetrator who is sued there did not himself act there. By contrast, in such a case, that provision does allow jurisdiction to be established, on the basis of the place of occurrence of damage, to hear an action for damages based on that national law brought against a person established in another Member State and who is alleged to have committed, in that State, an act which caused or may cause damage within the jurisdiction of that court.

---

(1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.

1

---