Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2017:330
Date: 2017-05-03
Language of the case: German
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 19 October 2017 1. EU trade mark — Civil actions on the basis of more than one trade mark — Simultaneous and successive civil actions on the basis of EU trade marks and national trade marks — Lis pendens — Meaning of ‘same cause of action’ — Actions for infringement, on the basis of an EU trade mark and a national trade mark, between the same parties brought in the courts of different Member States — Included — Conditions — Actions concerning an alleged infringement of identical trade marks in the territory of the same Member States (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 109(1)(a)) 2. EU trade mark — Civil actions on the basis of more than one trade mark — Simultaneous and successive civil actions on the basis of EU trade marks and national trade marks — Lis pendens — Actions for infringement, on the basis of an EU trade mark and a national trade mark, between the same parties brought in the courts of different Member States — Obligation of the court other than the court first seised to decline jurisdiction — Extent of the declination (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 109(1)(a)) 3. EU trade mark — Civil actions on the basis of more than one trade mark — Simultaneous and successive civil actions on the basis of EU trade marks and national trade marks — Lis pendens — Meaning of ‘same cause of action’ — Actions for infringement, on the basis of an EU trade mark and a national trade mark, between the same parties brought in the courts of different Member States — Included — Conditions — Actions concerning an alleged infringement of identical trade marks in the territory of the same Member States — Partial withdrawal — Effect (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 109(1)(a)) 4. EU trade mark — Civil actions on the basis of more than one trade mark — Simultaneous and successive civil actions on the basis of EU trade marks and national trade marks — Lis pendens — Actions for infringement, on the basis of an EU trade mark and a national trade mark, between the same parties brought in the courts of different Member States — Obligation of the court other than the court first seised to decline jurisdiction — Conditions — Trade marks valid for identical goods or services (Council Regulation No 207/2009, Art. 109(1)(a)) 1. Article 109(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the condition laid down in that provision as to the existence of the ‘same cause of action’ is satisfied where actions for infringement between the same parties, on the basis of a national trade mark and an EU trade mark respectively, are brought before the courts of different Member States, only in so far as those actions relate to an alleged infringement of a national trade mark and an identical EU trade mark in the territory of the same Member States. (see para. 44, operative part 1) 2. Article 109(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that, where actions for infringement, the first on the basis of a national trade mark concerning an alleged infringement within the territory of a Member State and the second on the basis of an EU trade mark concerning an alleged infringement in the entire territory of the European Union, are brought before the courts of different Member States between the same parties, the court other than the court first seised must decline jurisdiction in respect of the part of the dispute relating to the territory of the Member State referred to in the action for infringement brought before the court first seised. (see para. 53, operative part 2) 3. Article 109(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the condition laid down in that provision as to the existence of the ‘same cause of action’ is no longer satisfied where, following a partial withdrawal by an applicant, provided that it was properly declared, of an action for infringement on the basis of an EU trade mark seeking initially to prohibit the use of that trade mark in the territory of the European Union, such a withdrawal concerning the Member State referred to in the action brought before the court first seised, on the basis of a national trade mark seeking to prohibit the use of that trade mark within the territory of that Member State, the actions in question no longer relate to an alleged infringement of a national trade mark and an identical EU trade mark in the territory of the same Member States. (see para. 58, operative part 3) 4. Article 109(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that, where the trade marks are identical, the court other than the court first seised must decline jurisdiction in favour of the court first seised only in so far as those trade marks are valid for identical goods or service. (see para. 62, operative part 4)