Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2008:14
Date: 2008-01-16
Language of the case: Dutch
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Intellectual, industrial and commercial property;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

Summary of the Judgment 1. Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Right of the proprietor of a registered trade mark to contest its unlawful use (Council Directive 89/104, Art. 5(1)(b)) 2. Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Right of the proprietor of a registered trade mark to contest its unlawful use (Council Directive 89/104, Art. 5(1)(b)) 3. Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Well-known trade mark (Council Directive 89/104, Art. 5(2)) 4. Approximation of laws – Trade marks – Directive 89/104 – Limitation of the effects of the trade mark (Council Directive 89/104, Art. 6(1)(b)) 1. According to the 10th recital in the preamble to First Directive 89/104 on trade marks, the appreciation of a likelihood of confusion ‘depends on numerous elements and, in particular, on the recognition of the trade mark on the market, of the association which can be made with the used or registered sign, of the degree of similarity between the trade mark and the sign and between the goods or services identified’. The likelihood of confusion must therefore be appreciated globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case. The fact that there is a need for the sign to be available for other economic operators cannot be one of those relevant factors. As is apparent from the wording of Article 5(1)(b) of the Directive, the answer to the question as to whether there is a likelihood of confusion must be based on the perception by the public of the goods covered by the mark of the proprietor on the one hand and the goods covered by the sign used by the third party on the other. Moreover, signs which must, generally, remain available for all economic operators are likely to be used abusively with a view to creating confusion in the mind of the consumer. If, in such a context, the third party could rely on the requirement of availability to use a sign which is nevertheless similar to the trade mark freely, without the proprietor of the latter being able to oppose that use by pleading likelihood of confusion, the effective application of Article 5(1) of the Directive would be undermined. (see paras 29-31) 2. The public’s perception that a sign is a decoration cannot constitute a restriction on the protection conferred by Article 5(1)(b) of First Directive 89/104 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks when, despite its decorative nature, the sign is so similar to the registered trade mark that the relevant public is likely to perceive that the goods come from the same undertaking or, as the case may be, from economically-linked undertakings. As is clear from the 10th recital in the Directive, that appreciation of likelihood of confusion depends not solely on the degree of similarity between the trade mark and the sign, but also on the ease with which the sign may be associated with the mark having regard, in particular, to the recognition of the latter on the market. The more the mark is well known, the greater the number of operators who will want to use similar signs. The presence on the market of a large quantity of goods covered by similar signs might adversely affect the trade mark in so far as it could reduce the distinctive character of the mark and jeopardise its essential function, which is to ensure that consumers know where the goods concerned come from. (see paras 34, 36) 3. Article 5(2) of First Directive 89/104 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks establishes, for the benefit of trade marks with a reputation, a form of protection whose implementation does not require the existence of a likelihood of confusion. Article 5(2) applies to situations in which the specific condition of the protection consists of a use of the sign in question without due cause which takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark. The infringements referred to in Article 5(2) of the Directive, where they occur, are the consequence of a certain degree of similarity between the mark and the sign, by virtue of which the relevant section of the public makes a connection between the sign and the mark, that is to say, establishes a link between them even though it does not confuse them. It is not therefore necessary that the degree of similarity between the mark with a reputation and the sign used by the third party is such that there exists a likelihood of confusion between them on the part of the relevant section of the public. It is sufficient for the degree of similarity between the mark with a reputation and the sign to have the effect that the relevant section of the public establishes a link between the sign and the mark. The existence of such a link must be appreciated globally, taking into account all the relevant factors relevant to the circumstances of the case. The requirement of availability is extraneous both to the assessment of the degree of similarity between the mark with a reputation and the sign used by the third party and to the link which may be made by the relevant public between that mark and the sign. It cannot therefore constitute a relevant factor for determining whether the use of the sign takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark. (see paras 40-43) 4. Article 6(1)(b) of the Directive provides that the proprietor of a trade mark cannot prohibit a third party from using, in the course of trade, indications concerning the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, the time of production of goods or of rendering of the service, or other characteristics of goods or services, provided he uses them in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters. By thus limiting the effects of the exclusive rights of a trade mark proprietor, Article 6 of the Directive seeks to reconcile the fundamental interests of trade mark protection with those of free movement of goods and freedom to provide services in the common market in such a way that trade mark rights are able to fulfil their essential role in the system of undistorted competition which the Treaty seeks to establish and maintain. Specifically, Article 6(1)(b) of the Directive seeks to ensure that all economic operators have the opportunity to use descriptive indications. That provision therefore gives expression to the requirement of availability. However, the requirement of availability cannot in any circumstances constitute an independent restriction of the effects of the trade mark in addition to those expressly provided for in Article 6(1)(b) of the Directive. It must be stated in that regard that, in order for a third party to be able to plead the limitations of the effects of the trade mark in Article 6(1)(b) of the Directive and rely in that respect on the requirement of availability underlying that provision, the indication used by it must, as required by that provision of the Directive, relate to one of the characteristics of the goods marketed or the service provided by that third party. (see paras 44-47)