Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2014:2069
Date: 2014-07-10
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Intellectual, industrial and commercial property;Approximation of laws;Patents
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 10 July 2014 1. Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95 — Service marks — Concept of ‘services’ — Community concept — Uniform interpretation (European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/95) 2. Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95 — Service marks — Concept of ‘services’ — Services of bringing together services — Inclusion (European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/95, Art. 2) 3. Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95 — Identification of the goods or services concerned by the mark — Requirements of clarity and precision — Service of bringing together services (European Parliament and Council Directive 2008/95) 4. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — General or hypothetical questions — Question abstract and purely hypothetical in character having regard to the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings — Inadmissibility (Art. 267 TFEU) 1. See the text of the decision. (see para. 32) 2. Services rendered by an economic operator which consist in bringing together services so that the consumer can conveniently compare and purchase them may come within the concept of ‘services’ referred to in Article 2 of Directive 2008/95 relating to trade marks. (see para. 40, operative part 1) 3. Directive 2008/95 relating to trade marks requires an application for registration of a trade mark with respect to a service which consists of bringing together services to be formulated with sufficient clarity and precision so as to allow the competent authorities and other economic operators to know which services the applicant intends to bring together. (see para. 53, operative part 2) 4. A request for a preliminary ruling brought by a national court must be rejected where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main proceedings or its purpose. (see para. 55)