Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2012:717
Date: 2012-11-15
Language of the case: Hungarian
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Intellectual, industrial and commercial property;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Hungary

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 15 November 2012 1. EU law — Primacy — Contrary national law — Inapplicability as a matter of law of existing standards — Obligation to comply with the instructions of a higher court which are not in accordance with EU law — Not permissible (Art. 267 TFEU) 2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Conditions — Questions which bear a relation to the actual facts of the action or its purpose — Reference which provides the Court with sufficient details about the factual and legislative context (Art. 267 TFEU) 3. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Interpretation of an international agreement concluded by the Community and the Member States on the basis of shared competence — Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) (Art. 267 TFEU; TRIPs Agreement) 4. Approximation of laws — Enforcement of intellectual property rights —Directive 2004/48 — Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) — Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property — Measures, procedures and remedies to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights — Scope — Procedure for the invalidation of the protection of a utility model — Not included (European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/48, Arts 2(1) and 3(2); (TRIPs Agreement, Art. 41(1) and (2)) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 53-55) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 58) 3. See the text of the decision. (see para. 67) 4. Inasmuch as the provisions of Articles 2(1) and 3(2) of Directive 2004/48 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, interpreted in the light of Article 2(1) of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and of Article 41(1) and (2) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement), which constitutes Annex 1C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation, approved by Decision 94/800 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations, are not applicable to a procedure for the invalidation of the protection of a utility model, those provisions do not preclude that, in such judicial proceedings, the court is not bound by the claims and other statements made by the parties and is entitled to order of its own motion the production of any evidence that it may deem necessary, is not bound by an administrative decision made in relation to an application for invalidation or by the findings of fact in that decision, and is not entitled to re-examine evidence which was already submitted in connection with a previous application for invalidation. The abovementioned provisions are intended to govern only the aspects of intellectual property rights related to, first, the enforcement of those rights and, secondly, to infringement of them, by requiring that there must be effective legal remedies designed to prevent, terminate or rectify any infringement of an existing intellectual property right. It follows that those provisions simply ensure the enforcement of the various rights enjoyed by persons who have acquired intellectual property rights, namely the proprietors of such rights, and cannot be interpreted as being intended to govern the various measures and procedures available to persons who, without themselves being the proprietors of such rights, dispute the intellectual property rights acquired by others. A procedure for the invalidation of the protection of a utility model is specifically available to a person who, without being the proprietor of an intellectual property right, disputes the protection of a utility model granted to the proprietor of the corresponding rights. Consequently, such a procedure is not intended to ensure, for the purposes of the relevant provisions, that proprietors of intellectual property rights are protected. (see paras 75, 77-79, 82, operative part)