# C_2021242EN.01000701.xml

| 21.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 17 March 2021 — Harman International Industries v AB SA

(Case C-175/21)

(2021/C 242/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Harman International Industries

Defendant: AB SA

Question referred

Must the second sentence of Article 36 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark, (1) and in conjunction with the second sentence of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, be interpreted as precluding the practice of the national courts of the Member States, which is that the courts:

| — | when upholding claims by right holders to prohibit the importation, putting on the market, offering, advertising of goods bearing the EU trade mark, to order their withdrawal from the market or to order their destruction; |
| --- | --- |

—

when upholding claims by right holders to prohibit the importation, putting on the market, offering, advertising of goods bearing the EU trade mark, to order their withdrawal from the market or to order their destruction;

| — | when ruling, in proceedings to secure claims, on the seizure of goods bearing the EU trade mark,
  refer in their rulings to ‘goods which have not been put on the market within the European Economic Area by the right holder or with his consent’, with the result that it is left to the enforcement authority, in view of the general wording of the ruling, to determine which items bearing the EU trade mark are subject to the injunctions and prohibitions granted (that is to say, which items have not been put on the market within the European Economic Area by the right holder or with his consent), while the possibility of challenging the aforementioned findings of the enforcement authority before a court in declaratory proceedings is excluded or limited by the nature of the legal remedies available to the defendant in proceedings to secure claims and in enforcement proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

—

when ruling, in proceedings to secure claims, on the seizure of goods bearing the EU trade mark,

refer in their rulings to ‘goods which have not been put on the market within the European Economic Area by the right holder or with his consent’, with the result that it is left to the enforcement authority, in view of the general wording of the ruling, to determine which items bearing the EU trade mark are subject to the injunctions and prohibitions granted (that is to say, which items have not been put on the market within the European Economic Area by the right holder or with his consent), while the possibility of challenging the aforementioned findings of the enforcement authority before a court in declaratory proceedings is excluded or limited by the nature of the legal remedies available to the defendant in proceedings to secure claims and in enforcement proceedings?

---

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

---