# C_2022064EN.01001401.xml

| 7.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 28 October 2021 — LM v KP

(Case C-654/21)

(2022/C 64/22)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant and counter-defendant: LM

Defendant and counter-claimant: KP

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 124(d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark, (1) read in conjunction with Article 128(1) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘counterclaim for ... a declaration of invalidity’ contained in those provisions may mean a [counter]claim for a declaration of invalidity only to the extent that that counterclaim is connected with the claimant’s EU trade mark infringement claim, thus allowing a national court not to hear a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity the scope of which is broader than that connected with the claimant’s infringement claim? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 124(d) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark, (1) read in conjunction with Article 128(1) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘counterclaim for ... a declaration of invalidity’ contained in those provisions may mean a [counter]claim for a declaration of invalidity only to the extent that that counterclaim is connected with the claimant’s EU trade mark infringement claim, thus allowing a national court not to hear a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity the scope of which is broader than that connected with the claimant’s infringement claim?

| 2. | Must Article 129(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark be interpreted as meaning that the provision in question, which concerns ‘the rules of procedure governing the same type of action relating to a national trade mark’, refers to the national rules of procedure which would be applicable to specific proceedings concerning infringement of an EU trade mark (and to proceedings resulting from a statement of counterclaim seeking a declaration of invalidity), or does it refer generally to the national rules of procedure present in the legal order of a Member State, this being relevant in cases where, on account of the date on which the specific proceedings concerning infringement of an EU trade mark were initiated, the rules of procedure governing a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity of a trade mark relating to national trade marks were not present in the legal order of a given Member State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 129(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark be interpreted as meaning that the provision in question, which concerns ‘the rules of procedure governing the same type of action relating to a national trade mark’, refers to the national rules of procedure which would be applicable to specific proceedings concerning infringement of an EU trade mark (and to proceedings resulting from a statement of counterclaim seeking a declaration of invalidity), or does it refer generally to the national rules of procedure present in the legal order of a Member State, this being relevant in cases where, on account of the date on which the specific proceedings concerning infringement of an EU trade mark were initiated, the rules of procedure governing a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity of a trade mark relating to national trade marks were not present in the legal order of a given Member State?

---

(1)  OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1.

---