# C_2019187EN.01004602.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/46

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 19 March 2019 — Gömböc Kutató, Szolgáltato és Kerreskedelmi Kft. v Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala

(Case C-237/19)

(2019/C 187/50)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Kúria

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gömböc Kutató, Szolgáltato és Kerreskedelmi Kft.

Defendant: Szellemi Tulajdon Nemzeti Hivatala

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 3(1)(e)(ii) of Directive 2008/95/EC (1) of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks to be interpreted as meaning that, for signs which consist exclusively of the shape of goods,






  (a) | it can only be examined if the shape is necessary to obtain the technical result sought on the basis of the graphic representation contained in the register, or |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 3(1)(e)(ii) of Directive 2008/95/EC (1) of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks to be interpreted as meaning that, for signs which consist exclusively of the shape of goods,

(a)

it can only be examined if the shape is necessary to obtain the technical result sought on the basis of the graphic representation contained in the register, or

| (b) | can the perception of the relevant public also be taken into account?
  In other words, can it be taken into account that the relevant public is aware that the shape for which registration is sought is necessary in order to obtain the technical result sought? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

can the perception of the relevant public also be taken into account?

In other words, can it be taken into account that the relevant public is aware that the shape for which registration is sought is necessary in order to obtain the technical result sought?

| 2. | Is Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 2008/95/EC of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks to be interpreted as meaning that the ground for refusal is applicable to those signs which consist exclusively of the shape of goods and in respect of which it can be determined whether the shape gives substantial value to the goods, bearing in mind the perception or knowledge that the buyer has of the goods represented graphically? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 2008/95/EC of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks to be interpreted as meaning that the ground for refusal is applicable to those signs which consist exclusively of the shape of goods and in respect of which it can be determined whether the shape gives substantial value to the goods, bearing in mind the perception or knowledge that the buyer has of the goods represented graphically?

| 3. | Is Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 2008/95/EC of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks to be interpreted as meaning that the ground for refusal is applicable to signs which consist exclusively of a shape






  (a) | that, by virtue of its individual character, already enjoys the protection conferred on designs, or |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Is Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of Directive 2008/95/EC of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks to be interpreted as meaning that the ground for refusal is applicable to signs which consist exclusively of a shape

(a)

that, by virtue of its individual character, already enjoys the protection conferred on designs, or

| (b) | whose aesthetic appearance alone gives the goods any kind of value? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

whose aesthetic appearance alone gives the goods any kind of value?

---

(1)  OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25.

---