# C_2018352EN.01001501.xml

| 1.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 August 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — Coöperatieve Vereniging SNB-REACT U.A. v Deepak Mehta

(Case C-521/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 4 - Legal standing of a body for the collective representation of trade mark proprietors - Directive 2000/31/EC - Articles 12 to 14 - Liability of a provider of IP address rental and registration services allowing the anonymous use of domain names and websites))

(2018/C 352/19)

Language of the case: Estonian

Referring court

Tallinna Ringkonnakohus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Coöperatieve Vereniging SNB-REACT U.A.

Defendant: Deepak Mehta

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 4(c) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are required to recognise a body collectively representing trade mark proprietors, such as that at issue in the case in the main proceedings, as a person entitled to seek, in its own name, the application of the remedies laid down by that directive, for the purpose of defending the rights of those trade mark proprietors, and to bring legal proceedings, in its own name, for the purpose of enforcing those rights, on condition that that body is regarded by national law as having a direct interest in the defence of such rights and that that law allows it to bring legal proceedings to that end, these being matters for the referring court to verify. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 4(c) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are required to recognise a body collectively representing trade mark proprietors, such as that at issue in the case in the main proceedings, as a person entitled to seek, in its own name, the application of the remedies laid down by that directive, for the purpose of defending the rights of those trade mark proprietors, and to bring legal proceedings, in its own name, for the purpose of enforcing those rights, on condition that that body is regarded by national law as having a direct interest in the defence of such rights and that that law allows it to bring legal proceedings to that end, these being matters for the referring court to verify.

| 2. | Articles 12 to 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) must be interpreted as meaning that the limitations of liability for which they provide apply to the provider of an IP address rental and registration service allowing the anonymous use of internet domain names, such as that at issue in the case in the main proceedings, inasmuch as that service comes within the scope of one of the categories of service referred to in those articles and meets all the corresponding conditions, in so far as the activity of such a service provider is of a merely technical, automatic and passive nature, implying that he has neither knowledge of nor control over the information transmitted or cached by his customers, and in so far as he does not play an active role in allowing those customers to optimise their online sales activity, these being matters for the referring court to verify. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 12 to 14 of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) must be interpreted as meaning that the limitations of liability for which they provide apply to the provider of an IP address rental and registration service allowing the anonymous use of internet domain names, such as that at issue in the case in the main proceedings, inasmuch as that service comes within the scope of one of the categories of service referred to in those articles and meets all the corresponding conditions, in so far as the activity of such a service provider is of a merely technical, automatic and passive nature, implying that he has neither knowledge of nor control over the information transmitted or cached by his customers, and in so far as he does not play an active role in allowing those customers to optimise their online sales activity, these being matters for the referring court to verify.

---

(1)  OJ C 382, 13.11.2017.

---