# C_2022037EN.01001802.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 15 November 2021 — VW, Legea S.r.l. v SW, CQ, ET, VW, Legea S.r.l.

(Case C-686/21)

(2022/C 37/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: VW, Legea S.r.l.

Respondents: SW, CQ, ET, VW, Legea S.r.l.

Questions referred

| 1. | Are the EU rules in question, (1) in so far as they provide for the exclusive rights of the proprietor of an EU trade mark and, at the same time, for the possibility of such a mark being owned by several individuals in shares, to be interpreted as meaning that the assignment to a third party of the exclusive right to use a shared trade mark, free of charge and for an indefinite period, can be decided upon by a majority of the joint proprietors, or as meaning that it requires their unanimous consent instead? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Are the EU rules in question, (1) in so far as they provide for the exclusive rights of the proprietor of an EU trade mark and, at the same time, for the possibility of such a mark being owned by several individuals in shares, to be interpreted as meaning that the assignment to a third party of the exclusive right to use a shared trade mark, free of charge and for an indefinite period, can be decided upon by a majority of the joint proprietors, or as meaning that it requires their unanimous consent instead?

| 2. | If it is the latter, in the case where an EU trade mark or a national trade mark is owned by several individuals, would it be consistent with the principles of EU law for it to be impossible for one of the joint proprietors of the mark, after the mark has been assigned to a third party by unanimous decision, free of charge and for an indefinite period, unilaterally to withdraw from that decision or, alternatively, would it, on the contrary, be consistent with the principles of EU law if the joint proprietor were not bound in perpetuity by the original intent, such that he or she could retract, with the resulting effect on the act of assignment? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If it is the latter, in the case where an EU trade mark or a national trade mark is owned by several individuals, would it be consistent with the principles of EU law for it to be impossible for one of the joint proprietors of the mark, after the mark has been assigned to a third party by unanimous decision, free of charge and for an indefinite period, unilaterally to withdraw from that decision or, alternatively, would it, on the contrary, be consistent with the principles of EU law if the joint proprietor were not bound in perpetuity by the original intent, such that he or she could retract, with the resulting effect on the act of assignment?

---

(1)  Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2015 L 336, p. 1); Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).

---