# C_2015262EN.01001101.xml

| 10.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/11

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Harju Maakohus (Estonia) lodged on 10 June 2015 — Irina Nikolajeva v OÜ Multi Protect

(Case C-280/15)

(2015/C 262/15)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Referring court

Harju Maakohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Irina Nikolajeva

Applicant:

Defendant: OÜ Multi Protect

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

The following questions on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling:

1

| 1) | Is a Community trade mark court required to issue the order provided for in Article 102(1) if the applicant does not seek such an order in his claims and the parties do not allege that the defendant has infringed or threatened to infringe a Community trade mark after a specific date in the past, or does failure to make an application to that effect and to refer to this fact represent a ‘special reason’ within the meaning of the first sentence of this provision? |
| --- | --- |

1)

Is a Community trade mark court required to issue the order provided for in Article 102(1) if the applicant does not seek such an order in his claims and the parties do not allege that the defendant has infringed or threatened to infringe a Community trade mark after a specific date in the past, or does failure to make an application to that effect and to refer to this fact represent a ‘special reason’ within the meaning of the first sentence of this provision?

| 2) | Is Article 9(3) to be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a Community trade mark may demand only reasonable compensation from a third party on the basis of the second sentence of Article 9(3) for use of a sign identical with the trade mark in the period from the publication of the application for registration of the trade mark until the publication of the registration of the trade mark, but not compensation for the fair market value of what has been gained as a result of the infringement and for damage, and that there is also no right to reasonable compensation for the period prior to publication of the application for registration of the trade mark? |
| --- | --- |

2)

Is Article 9(3) to be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a Community trade mark may demand only reasonable compensation from a third party on the basis of the second sentence of Article 9(3) for use of a sign identical with the trade mark in the period from the publication of the application for registration of the trade mark until the publication of the registration of the trade mark, but not compensation for the fair market value of what has been gained as a result of the infringement and for damage, and that there is also no right to reasonable compensation for the period prior to publication of the application for registration of the trade mark?

| 3) | What type of costs and other forms of compensation are included in reasonable compensation under Article 9(3), second sentence, and can this also encompass in certain circumstances (and if so, in which circumstances) compensation for non-material harm caused to the proprietor of the trade mark? |
| --- | --- |

3)

What type of costs and other forms of compensation are included in reasonable compensation under Article 9(3), second sentence, and can this also encompass in certain circumstances (and if so, in which circumstances) compensation for non-material harm caused to the proprietor of the trade mark?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.

1

---