# C_2013141EN.01001001.xml

| 18.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Úřad průmyslového vlastnictví (Czech Republic) lodged on 29 January 2013 — MF 7 a.s. v MAFRA a.s.

(Case C-49/13)

2013/C 141/16

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Referring court

Úřad průmyslového vlastnictví

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MF 7 a.s.

Applicant:

Defendant: MAFRA a.s.

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 3(2)(d) of ... Directive [2008/95/EC] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, for the assessment of whether a trade mark applicant acted in good faith, only circumstances apparent before the date or on the date of the submission of the trade mark application are relevant, or can circumstances which occurred after the application was submitted also be used as supporting evidence of the fact that the applicant acted in good faith? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 3(2)(d) of ... Directive [2008/95/EC] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, for the assessment of whether a trade mark applicant acted in good faith, only circumstances apparent before the date or on the date of the submission of the trade mark application are relevant, or can circumstances which occurred after the application was submitted also be used as supporting evidence of the fact that the applicant acted in good faith?

1

| 2. | Is it necessary to apply the judgment in Joined Cases C-414/99 to C-416/99 (2) generally to all cases where it is being assessed whether a trade mark proprietor agreed to conduct which may result in weakening or limitation of his exclusive rights ? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is it necessary to apply the judgment in Joined Cases C-414/99 to C-416/99 (2) generally to all cases where it is being assessed whether a trade mark proprietor agreed to conduct which may result in weakening or limitation of his exclusive rights ?

2

| 3. | Is it possible to infer good faith on the part of an applicant for a later trade mark from the situation in which the proprietor of an earlier trade mark concluded agreements with it, on the basis of which that proprietor consented to the publication of periodical printed material whose designation was similar to mark applied for by the later trade mark applicant, agreed with the registration of that printed material by the applicant for a later trade mark and offered that applicant support in its publication, but the agreements concerned nevertheless did not expressly regulate the issue of the intellectual property right? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is it possible to infer good faith on the part of an applicant for a later trade mark from the situation in which the proprietor of an earlier trade mark concluded agreements with it, on the basis of which that proprietor consented to the publication of periodical printed material whose designation was similar to mark applied for by the later trade mark applicant, agreed with the registration of that printed material by the applicant for a later trade mark and offered that applicant support in its publication, but the agreements concerned nevertheless did not expressly regulate the issue of the intellectual property right?

| 4. | In so far as circumstances occurring after a trade mark application was submitted may also be relevant for the purposes of the assessment of whether the trade mark applicant acted in good faith, is it possible, in the alternative, to infer the fact that the applicant acted in good faith from the situation in which the proprietor of the earlier trade mark knowingly tolerated the existence of the contested trade mark for a period of at least ten years? |
| --- | --- |

4.

In so far as circumstances occurring after a trade mark application was submitted may also be relevant for the purposes of the assessment of whether the trade mark applicant acted in good faith, is it possible, in the alternative, to infer the fact that the applicant acted in good faith from the situation in which the proprietor of the earlier trade mark knowingly tolerated the existence of the contested trade mark for a period of at least ten years?

---

(1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version) (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).

1

(2)  ECR I-08691.

2

---