Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2019:39
Date: 2019-01-17
Language of the case: German
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary of the parties’ observations 31. Öko-Test Verlag submits that its quality mark is used as a trade mark not for toothpaste but for a service (which it itself provides), and proposes that this question be answered in the affirmative. It argues that a quality label is not the same as a quality seal, since the former provides information on how a product performs against certain pre-established standards, while a quality seal serves only to make the quality of a product recognisable at first sight to the consumer. It concurs with the referring court and the German Government in ruling out any similarity with guarantee and certification marks. (24) 32. Öko-Test Verlag takes the view that the public concerned will perceive the use of ÖKO-TEST on the toothpaste at issue as having been authorised by its proprietor and as indicating: (a) that that product received a ‘very good’ rating in the tests to which Öko-Test Verlag subjected it; and (b) that that rating is consistent with the content of its publication and its neutral, objective and expert standards. Consequently, Dr Liebe’s use of ÖKO-TEST affects not only the trade mark’s function as an indication of origin but also other functions recognised by the Court of Justice. (25) 33. The German Government states that the first question asks not about the double identity referred to in Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 2008/95 but about the likelihood of confusion mentioned in subparagraph (b) of that article, since there are certain differences between the original ÖKO-TEST sign and the one used on the toothpaste (in particular, the test results and the publication reference). It suggests that this question be answered in the affirmative, on the basis that a trade mark registered for a service can be used for a product where the public recognises the autonomy of the service and that the latter is linked to the product. 34. The German Government considers that the decisive criterion is the perception of the public, which is used to organisations with no links to manufacturers carrying out analyses of everyday goods and then reporting the results to consumers immediately afterwards. Consumers could readily deduce that Öko-Test Verlag had tested the toothpaste and given it a ‘very good’ rating. What is more, it is common for undertakings to exhibit on those goods various marks or signs including quality or certification seals (organic farming, EU energy efficiency, fair trade), and to affix a supplier’s trade marks to them as an indication of the quality of the components of the end product (for example, Intel Inside in the case of computer processors). 35. The Commission takes the view, on the other hand, that the question actually relates to subparagraph (a), rather than (b), of both Article 9(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/95. It accepts that the affixing of the ÖKO-TEST trade mark to the toothpaste’s packaging necessarily refers to the services provided by the trade mark proprietor (Öko-Test Verlag), but considers that reference to be inherent in the advertising of the dental product and does not imply that Dr Liebe is advertising the same services as those offered by Öko-Test Verlag. 36. The Commission highlights the impact in terms of advertising which the toothpaste manufacturer is looking to obtain from using the ÖKO-TEST quality label: that the public will remember the service provided by the quality label proprietor as being the only possible source of an independent analysis. The clauses of the licensing agreement, it submits, are intended to ensure that any loss of quality on the part of the product tested does not adversely affect Öko-Test Verlag’s own trade mark, which it would if the product’s diminished quality were associated with the undertaking responsible for its testing. 2. Assessment 37. By the first question, the referring court wishes to ascertain, in essence, whether the ÖKO-TEST quality label, which is protected as a registered trade mark, serves, in the manner in which Dr Liebe uses it on toothpaste packaging, to identify the services provided by the proprietor of that mark and not only the goods sold by Dr Liebe. 38. The Court of Justice held in the judgment in Gözze that ‘there is no use in accordance with the essential function of the individual mark where it is affixed on goods for the sole purpose of being a label of quality for those goods and not that of guaranteeing, in addition, that the goods come from a single undertaking under the control of which they are manufactured and which is responsible for their quality’. (26) 39. If that ruling were followed to the letter, the solution to the present dispute would be relatively simple, inasmuch as Öko-Test Verlag does not manufacture toothpaste and its trade mark is not affixed to the packaging in order to identify the product’s origin. It would therefore have to be found that that undertaking cannot prohibit Dr Liebe from using the ÖKO-TEST trade mark in the course of trade under Article 9(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation 2017/1001. 40. Although, in the present case, such an approach could (as I shall later propose) be corrected by recourse to subparagraph (c) of the same provision, given the reputation which ÖKO-TEST enjoys on the German market, I am nonetheless of the view that proprietors of signs not having a reputation should have access to some form of legal instrument under trade mark law to enable them to take action against the use of their sign by third parties without their consent in circumstances such those at issue here. (27) An investigation of the differences between a quality seal and a quality label might come up with a more detailed answer than that offered by the judgment in Gözze. 41. As regards whether the situation at issue here is properly caught by the scenario provided for in subparagraph (a) or (b) of Article 9(2) of Regulation 2017/1001, there has been some inconsistency in the parties’ interpretation of the first question. A better approach is to set out the criteria for determining whether the conditions of application common to both scenarios are met (28) in order then to determine which one is applicable. (a) Basis of adjudication (1) Starting point 42. In principle, the proprietor of a registered trade mark may prohibit the use of a sign by a third party, pursuant to Article 9(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation 2017/1001, only where the following conditions are fulfilled: – First, the sign must be identical with (29) or similar to the proprietor’s registered trade mark; – Secondly, use of the registered trade mark: (a) must occur in the course of trade; (b) must be without the consent of the trade mark proprietor; (c) must be in connection with goods or services identical with or similar to those for which the trade mark was registered; and (d) must adversely affect or be capable of adversely affecting one of the functions performed by the trade mark. (30) 43. It follows from the documents sent by the referring court that the (first) condition, relating to the identity of the sign, (31) should not pose any problems, given that Dr Liebe does not deny having used the ÖKO-TEST quality label on its toothpaste packaging. 44. In this regard, I am unconvinced by the German Government’s view on the differences between the registered trade mark version of ÖKO-TEST and the emblem that features on Dr Liebe’s toothpaste packaging. The fact that, as it appears on that packaging, the trade mark includes within it the test results and a publication reference, is irrelevant, for two reasons: the first is that the public is used to seeing the ÖKO-TEST trade mark with those details (without them, there would be little if any value in its being featured on the product’s advertising); and the second, which follows from the first, is that those differences would go unnoticed by the average consumer, inasmuch as they would not make him think that this is a different trade mark (although, as a point of fact, this is a matter for the referring court to examine). (32) 45. Neither is there any dispute as to the fulfilment of the conditions with respect to use in the course of trade and lack of consent on the part of the trade mark proprietor. The latter does not have to be a competitor of the product manufacturer: since Article 9(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 allows the proprietor of the trade mark to prohibit its use by ‘all third parties’ using it without the proprietor’s consent, status as a competitor is not essential. The fact that subparagraphs (a) and (b) of that provision apply primarily to competitors does not mean that the legislature confined to them alone the right of action enjoyed by the trade mark proprietor. 46. It therefore remains to be determined whether there was any ‘coincidence’ between the goods and services and, once that question has been answered, whether the use of the ÖKO-TEST trade mark by Dr Liebe was sufficient to adversely affect one of the characteristic functions of that trade mark. (2) Nature of the trade mark 47. The ÖKO-TEST quality label is a mark registered for services. Signs of this kind are different from those that designate goods on account of their non-material nature, which deprives them of a tangible foundation, unlike goods protected by trade marks. (33) 48. The non-material nature of services allows them to interact with goods. Where the properties of a product are affected by services, one may find service marks along with the trade marks for the goods so affected. This is true of the extended use of the seals and quality labels to which the German Government refers. 49. Trade marks for goods that feature labels (such as quality labels) will usually be found in contracts including a licence for use. These authorise the manufacturer, as licensee, to use the label on its products, thus enhancing their reputation. The quality label is used precisely in order to communicate to the public that such products, after having undergone the relevant tests, have been favourably rated by the quality label proprietor (in this case, Öko-Test Verlag). 50. Where the label is registered as a trade mark, the agreement will allow the licensee to affix it, as a trade mark, to its own products. That same agreement, however, also enables the trade mark proprietor to make its own services known to the public, in a symbiosis favourable both to itself and to the various licensees. What is created, as I shall explain further when describing the characteristics of the quality label, is a form of ‘dual use’ agreement. (34) 51. In this way, Dr Liebe can, if duly authorised, imprint the quality label as a trade mark on its own products; at the same time, however, the use of the ÖKO-TEST label on those products leads to a wider dissemination of the services which Öko-Test Verlag offers to undertakings and consumers. (3) Characteristics of the services provided by Öko-Test Verlag 52. Regulation 2017/1001 and Directive 2015/2436 make provision for collective marks (35) and certification marks: (36) – Collective marks serve to differentiate goods or services of the members of the association which is the proprietor of the mark from those of other undertakings. – Certification or guarantee marks fulfil their function as indications or origin where they distinguish ‘goods or services which are certified by the proprietor of the mark in respect of material, mode of manufacture of goods or performance of services, quality, accuracy or other characteristics […] from goods and services which are not so certified’. (37) 53. The quality label, although it bears certain similarities to certification marks, is not the same as these and is not provided for in any of the legislative texts cited. Generally speaking, the quality label can be registered as an individual mark by any undertaking whose business is the objective and independent evaluation of goods and which offers a broad range of economic operators the opportunity, in the form of a licensing agreement, to demonstrate the quality of their goods by using the logo of the undertaking concerned. 54. Those differences explain why it is difficult to require proprietors of quality labels to draw up regulations within the meaning of Article 75 of Regulation 2017/1001, since, for one thing, they are not members of an association that have a duty to comply with those regulations, as is the case with collective certification marks, and, for another, the undertaking that is the proprietor of the mark may vary at will the products subject to testing and the parameters of those tests. 55. The referring court points out the differences between quality labels and quality seals (such as that which was analysed in the judgment in Gözze), which are, in essence, that, in the case of quality labels: (a) the tests are extended to a broad range of goods and services and are not confined to just one; (b) the criteria are tailored to the needs of the consumer and the tests are regularly modified; (c) the organisation offering testing services is not under the influence of the producer; and (d) rather than authorisation to use the label being dependent on compliance with certain requirements, a rating is awarded on the basis of the test results. (38) 56. An undertaking whose products have been tested in this way is entitled, after concluding a licensing agreement for the use of the mark, to mention this fact in the description or packaging of its products. In the present case, if Dr Liebe secured the consent of Öko-Test Verlag, it could legitimately place the ÖKO-TEST sign in a visible location on its toothpaste, together with the rating obtained and a reference to the number of the magazine in which the results were published. It seems only logical, as the Commission submits, that an undertaking whose products are tested by Öko-Test Verlag and which obtains a satisfactory result will have an interest in putting that label on its products as a means of advertising the virtues of its goods. 57. In printing the ÖKO-TEST label in a visible format on the packaging of Aminomed, Dr Liebe seeks first and foremost to reinforce the message that this is a quality toothpaste through the reputation and reliability which the ÖKO-TEST trade mark bestows upon it, these being borne out by the rating (‘very good’) achieved and the reference to the magazine in which the test results were published. (39) At the same time, however, that same practice helps to communicate to consumers the reliability of the services provided by Öko-Test Verlag, which is to say that it helps to identify the business from which the activity of analysing and evaluating consumer goods originates. 58. Consequently, it cannot be submitted, as Dr Liebe did at the hearing, that the ÖKO-TEST sign was used descriptively, within the meaning of recital 21 of Regulation 2017/1001, in the manner of further information about the product. I do not share that view, inasmuch as: – The way in which that sign was employed demonstrates the intention to use the trade mark to identify the services provided by Öko-Test Verlag. If the intention had simply been to furnish information about the rating, this could have been conveyed without the need for the logo. – The aforementioned recital permits descriptive uses provided that they are fair and honest, qualities which are difficult to discern where the consent that was originally obtained no longer exists. 59. In short, given the close relationship between the services provided by the undertaking awarding the quality label (ÖKO-TEST) and the products that carry it (Aminomed), the use of that label after it has been registered as an individual trade mark has two important effects from the point of view of Article 9(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation 2017/1001: first, the label reinforces the indication as to the quality of the products that are authorised to use it, and it can therefore be said to be used for those products; (40) secondly, it also serves to advertise the services of the undertaking that awards it. It is, in short, a manifestation of the dual use to which I referred previously. (4) Perception of the consumer 60. The view of the average consumer and the way in which he or she perceives the trade mark are matters of fact which fall to be determined by the national court. (41) The Court of Justice may nonetheless provide the national court with answers that will be useful to it in connection with the judgment it must give. (42) 61. Öko-Test Verlag, the German Government and the Commission (the latter with some qualifications) all agree that the public concerned will view the use of the ÖKO-TEST trade mark on the packaging of the toothpaste at issue as a reference to the independent services of the undertaking that is the proprietor of that trade mark (Öko-Test Verlag). The average consumer will therefore associate that sign at least with the services of ‘consumer information and consultancy with regard to the selection of goods and services using test and investigation results’ (class 35) and the services of ‘conduct and assessment of science-based product testing and service reviews’ (class 42). 62. It is common for the packaging of many consumer goods to carry quality labels and seals (or other forms of certification or indication of environmentally-friendly origin or fair trade). It follows that, in a situation such as that at issue, the average consumer will readily understand that the ÖKO-TEST trade mark as used by Dr Liebe refers to the services provided by Öko-Test Verlag, with which he or she will associate the quality label. The way in which Dr Liebe utilises that mark thus constitutes ‘use as a trade mark’, (43) inasmuch as it operates to guarantee that the service of analysing the quality of the toothpaste was carried out by the undertaking that is the proprietor of the trade mark, that is to say Öko-Test Verlag. (5) Adverse effect on the functions of the trade mark 63. According to the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, the exclusive right of the proprietor of the trade mark enables him to protect his specific interests, that is, to ensure that the trade mark can fulfil its function. The exercise of that right must be reserved to cases in which a third party’s use of the sign affects or is liable to affect the functions of the trade mark, a mere threat of such harm being sufficient for these purposes. (44) 64. Amongst those functions is not only the (essential) function of identifying the origin of the product or service but also that of guaranteeing its quality, as well as those of communication, investment or advertising. (45) 65. As regards the essential function, the trade mark serves in particular to ‘guarantee that all the goods or services bearing it have been manufactured or supplied under the control of a single undertaking which is responsible for their quality’. (46) 66. Now, according to the statement of facts contained in the order for reference, Dr Liebe used the trade mark without the consent of Öko-Test Verlag and the rating it used, although corresponding to the evaluation it obtained in 2005, could not have borne any relation to the 2008 analyses, since its toothpaste was not included in these. In those circumstances, the average consumer might think that Öko-Test Verlag was still endorsing the quality of the toothpaste product as meeting the previous standard certified by the quality label, when, in truth, that toothpaste no longer had that endorsement because it had not been subjected to the new tests. 67. On that premiss, the use which Dr Liebe made of the ÖKO-TEST trade mark was potentially misleading, since it gave the impression that the ‘very good’ rating had been obtained following tests carried out under the control of Öko-Test Verlag. The essential function of the trade mark (47) was thus distorted, since, although Öko-Test Verlag conducted the original tests, the rating that features on the toothpaste’s packaging does not correspond either to the most recent toothpaste analyses carried out by Öko-Test Verlag, which the latter published in its magazine, or to the licences awarded after those new analyses. (48) 68. What is more, the differences between the result publicised by Dr Liebe via the ÖKO-TEST sign and the true account of the analyses as I have just set it out could tarnish the prestige achieved by Öko-Test Verlag through its trade mark, thus adversely affecting the function of investment (defined as being the possibility for the proprietor of a mark to employ it in order to acquire or preserve a reputation capable of attracting consumers and retaining their loyalty). (49) (b) Conclusion 69. As I have already made clear, I was minded not to opt at the outset for the inapplicability of either subparagraph (a) or (b) of Article 9(2) of Regulation 2017/1001. However, in the interests of providing the referring court with a useful answer, I would say that the explanations I have set out up to now lead me to the following conclusions: – Dr Liebe made dual use of a trade mark coincidental with the original (ÖKO-TEST), in order both to make its toothpaste more attractive by featuring the quality label (displaying the ‘very good’ rating), and to designate the services offered by Öko-Test Verlag. Inasmuch as there is therefore an identity of signs and services, the ‘double identity’ condition laid down in Article 9(2)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 is fulfilled. – In so far as the average consumer will not believe that the ÖKO-TEST trade mark indicates that the analysis of the Aminomed toothpaste was carried out by Dr Liebe and, given that that trade mark is well known to the German public, will not believe either that the toothpaste comes from the same undertaking or from economically linked undertakings, any likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 9(2) of Regulation 2017/1001 is ruled out. 70. Given, moreover, the risk that Dr Liebe’s use of the ÖKO-TEST trade mark will adversely affect, at the very least, the functions of indication of origin and investment performed by that mark, the conditions of application laid down in Article 9(2)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001 are met and that use can therefore be classified as being such as to infringe rights. 71. It should be taken into account, finally, that, since the list of the forms of use which the proprietor of a trade mark can prohibit, set out in Article 9(3) of Regulation 2017/1001, (50) is not exhaustive, Dr Liebe’s use of the trade mark at issue may be included therein, on the basis described above. C. Second question: use of a trade mark with a reputation in a manner such as to infringe rights 72. As I have suggested an answer in the affirmative to the first question and the referring court raises the second question only in the event that the answer to the first is in the negative, there is no essential need to proceed any further. I shall, nonetheless, address the second question in the alternative, in the event that the Court of Justice answers the first question differently or takes the view that my proposed finding as to the double identity of signs, on the one hand, and of services and products, on the other, is excessively artificial. 1. Summary of the parties’ observations 73. Öko-Test Verlag recalls that the special protection conferred on trade marks with a reputation goes beyond the scope of the identity or similarity of goods and is predicated on the impairment and improper exploitation of such marks. There is, it submits, no doubt that the ÖKO-TEST trade mark has a reputation and the public associates that mark with the sign which Dr Liebe affixes to its products. 74. In the view of Öko-Test Verlag, and the Commission, the ÖKO-TEST trade mark is used in such a way as to infringe rights where the person using it is not authorised to do so, and to the extent that its use adversely affects the functions of that trade mark. Furthermore, there is a risk that the public will lose confidence in its services if the product disappoints expectations. Consumers might project their frustration on to Öko-Test Verlag’s work, as manifested in its tests and publications. 75. Given its answer in the affirmative to the first question, the German Government has not commented on the second, as this is raised in the alternative. 76. The Commission takes the view that the conditions of application laid down in Article 9(2)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 5(2) of Directive 2008/95 are fulfilled where the individual trade mark enjoys a reputation as a quality label. Use in such a way as to infringe rights for the purposes of those provisions includes the affixing of that trade mark to its own products by a third party. 77. The Commission recalls that the trade mark at issue must be known to a significant proportion of the German public concerned by the goods or services protected by it. (51) It considers that the way in which the ÖKO-TEST sign is used may lend it prestige as a trade mark. Through the licensing agreement, Öko-Test Verlag ensures that its trade mark enters the public consciousness as a reference to its consumer information and consultancy services. 2. Assessment 78. The referring court wishes to ascertain whether, in the absence of any protection that might have been afforded to the ÖKO-TEST trade mark on the basis of Article 9(2)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001, reliance might be placed on the protection of trade marks with a reputation that is available under subparagraph (c) of that same article. 79. The obstacle that appears to be standing in the way of the referring court is that the ÖKO-TEST individual trade mark is known only as a quality label and is used as such by the third party. I do not believe this to be relevant, however. – So far as concerns any attempt to suggest that there was no ‘use as a trade mark’ within the meaning of the judgment in Gözze, I would refer, for the purposes of refuting that proposition, to my foregoing submissions. (52) – So far as concerns any attempt, on the other hand, to differentiate between the public’s knowledge of the trade mark, on the one hand, and the ‘quality label’, on the other, this, in my opinion, is an artificial difference. ÖKO-TEST was registered as an individual trade mark at national and EU level and must therefore enjoy the protection afforded to this type of mark, whether or not the public is unaware of this fact and whether or not a third party is seeking to use the trade mark only as a quality label. Any other approach would deprive trade marks of their legitimate protection, which would come to depend on the extent to which the public is aware of their registration. 80. What the second question is essentially asking, therefore, is whether the proprietor of the ÖKO-TEST quality label can avail itself of the protection available to trade marks with a reputation in order to take action against the use of that label by a third party in such a way as to infringe rights. It will, of course, have to be found that that trade mark enjoys the reputation required, given the extent to which that label is known to German consumers. This is an assessment which falls to the referring court alone. (53) 81. Article 9(2)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001 establishes, for the benefit of trade marks with a reputation a wider form of protection than that laid down in Article 9(2)(a) and (b). The — cumulative (54) — conditions of benefiting from that protection are: (a) that a sign is being used which is identical with or similar to a registered mark; (b) that that use is being made without due cause; (c) that the sign is being used for goods or services, whether identical, similar or not similar; (55) and (d) that use of that sign takes or would take unfair advantage of, or is or would be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark. (56) 82. There is no dispute as regards conditions (a), (b) and (c): use of the quality label by Dr Liebe was made without the consent of Öko-Test Verlag, and therefore without due cause, and in connection with goods or services in respect of which there is no need to establish identity or similarity. 83. Consequently, it is necessary to ascertain only whether, in using the ÖKO-TEST trade mark, Dr Liebe performed any (57) of the actions described in Article 9(2)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001. These may consist either in impairing the distinctive character of that mark, damaging the repute of that mark or taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of that mark. 84. In my opinion, for the reasons I have given in points 66 to 68 of this Opinion, the use which Dr Liebe made of the ÖKO-TEST trade mark may tarnish the prestige of that mark by creating in the mind of the consumer confusion such as to reduce the trade mark’s power of attraction. (58) 85. Furthermore, Dr Liebe would derive an advantage from using the ÖKO-TEST trade mark without due cause, inasmuch as the favourable connotations projected by that trade mark in terms of advertising and quality, as mentioned above, would be transferred to its toothpaste, which was not subjected to the new tests. This would amount to an unfair exploitation of the trade mark’s reputation within the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Justice. (59) 86. In any event, it is for the referring court to assess whether the facts of the dispute in the main proceedings are characterised by the sign’s being used, without due cause, in order to take unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the ÖKO-TEST trade mark. (60) V. Conclusion 87. In the light of the foregoing, I propose that the Court’s answers to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court, Düsseldorf, Germany) should be as follows: (1) Article 9(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark, and point (a) of the second sentence of Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, authorise the proprietor of an individual trade mark made up of a ‘quality label’ and registered for ‘consumer information and consultancy with regard to the selection of goods and services, in particular using test and investigation results and by means of quality judgments’ to oppose uses of his trade mark which he has not authorised where: – a third party affixes the trade mark to a product for which it is not registered; – the public perceives the trade mark as a ‘quality label’, in the sense that the product has been manufactured and marketed by a third party and not by the proprietor of the trade mark, but the latter has subjected it to certain tests, evaluated it and awarded it a rating which is marked on the quality label; and – the use adversely affects one of the functions of the trade mark. (2) The use by a third party of an individual trade mark exhibiting the features described, without the proprietor’s consent, constitutes a use such as to infringe rights for the purposes of Article 9(2)(c) of Regulation 2017/1001 and Article 5(2) of Directive 2008/95 where: – the trade mark has a reputation, even if only as a ‘quality label’; and – the prestige of the trade mark is tarnished and the third party obtains an unfair advantage from using the sign, a matter which falls to be determined by the referring court. 1 Original language: Spanish. 2 Although most of the language versions examined have translated the German ‘Testsiegel’ by reference to the word ‘test’ (‘label de test’ in French, ‘test seal’ in English, ‘sigillo di test’ in Italian, ‘testlabel’ in Dutch and ‘selo de teste’ in Portuguese), I shall use the term ‘quality label’, which I consider to be more appropriate. Öko-Test Verlag GmbH made clear at the hearing that it carries out comparative analyses of the products concerned rather than individual analyses of their intrinsic properties. Following that comparison, it gives each of the products in question a rating based on performance against certain predetermined quality criteria. 3 Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25). Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015(OJ 2015 L 336, p. 1), the title of which is identical to the previous directive, amended the latter but is not applicable to this case ratione temporis. 4 The version applicable here is, in principle, Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1). There is a later version, codified in Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1), which has a bearing ratione temporis on the facts of the dispute in so far as they concern the action for a prohibitory injunction and will therefore be the material version in this Opinion. 5 This corresponds in essence to Article 9(1) to (3) of Regulation No 207/2009, including the amendments introduced by Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OJ 2015 L 341, p. 21). 6 Law on the protection of trade marks and other distinctive signs of 25 October 1994 (BGBl. I, p. 3082; 1995 I, p. 156; 1996 I, p. 682), as last amended by Paragraph 11 of the Law of 17 July 2017 (BGBl. I, p. 2541). 7 Given the identity between the signs registered, at national and EU level, by Öko-Test Verlag, I shall henceforth refer to ‘the trade mark’, although it may on occasion be necessary to distinguish between them, in which event I shall refer to ‘the national trade mark’ or ‘the EU trade mark’. 8 In accordance with the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as amended on 28 September 1979. 9 According to the referring court, this requirement derives from the German case-law on unfair competition, which makes the lawfulness of advertising based on test results subject to an indication of their source. 10 There is no consensus between the parties to the dispute in the main proceedings as to the application of this clause. 11 ‘Dr Liebe’. 12 Article 83 et seq. of Regulation 2017/1001 and, for the purposes of the national certification mark, Article 27 et seq. of Directive 2015/2436. 13 Judgment of 8 June 2017, W. F. Gözze Frottierweberei and Gözze (C‑689/15, ‘the judgment in Gözze’, EU:C:2017:434, paragraph 45 et seq.). 14 It is referring to the judgments of 23 March 2010, Google France and Google (C‑236/08 to C‑238/08, EU:C:2010:159), and of 25 March 2010, Die BergSpechte (C‑278/08, ‘the judgment in BergSpechte’, EU:C:2010:163). 15 It has in mind the judgment of 23 October 2003, Adidas-Salomon and Adidas Benelux (C‑408/01, EU:C:2003:582). 16 Paragraph 8 of the order for reference. 17 Nonetheless, I shall, where necessary, refer specifically to the provisions of Directive 2015/2436. 18 Paragraph 10 of the order for reference. The fact remains, however, that, at the hearing, Dr Liebe reaffirmed that, in its view, the agreement was still in force at the material time. 19 Paragraph 8 of the Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb (German Law on unfair competition) of 3 July 2004, in the version contained in the notice of 3 March 2010 (BGBl. I, p. 254), as last amended on 17 February 2016 (BGBl. I, p. 233), does not confer standing to bring legal proceedings on competitors. Dr Liebe and Öko-Test Verlag operate in different markets. 20 Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1). 21 This will be the case, a priori, if an interpretation of the contract is necessary in order to establish the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the conduct of which the defendant is accused, the investigation of whether that is the case being a matter for the referring court. See the judgments of 13 March 2014, Brogsitter (C‑548/12; EU:C:2014:148, paragraphs 23 to 25), and of 14 July 2016, Granarolo (C‑196/15; EU:C:2016:559, paragraphs 21 and 22). 22 Judgment of 18 April 2013, Commission v Systran and Systran Luxembourg (C‑103/11 P, EU:C:2013:245, paragraph 66), and Opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalón in that case (EU:C:2012:714, points 49 and 50). In that case, notwithstanding that the contracts had come to an end, the Court of Justice declared that the EU judicature lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim for non-contractual liability precisely because of the contractual context, an examination of which was necessary in order to resolve the dispute. 23 Öko-Test Verlag stated that this was the sign it used to license before making various modifications to it in order to modernise and unify it. 24 Governed both by Article 27 of Directive 2015/2436 and by Article 83 of Regulation 2017/1001, cited in footnotes 2 and 4 respectively of this Opinion. 25 Judgments of 18 June 2009, L’Oréal and Others (C‑487/07, EU:C:2009:378, paragraph 58); of 23 March 2010, Google France and Google (C‑236/08 to C‑238/08, EU:C:2010:159, paragraphs 49, 77 and 79); and of 22 September 2011, Interflora and Interflora British Unit (C‑323/09, EU:C:2011:604, paragraph 38). 26 Paragraph 46. 27 At the hearing, the German Government expressed the same view, arguing that protection would otherwise be afforded only to trade marks with a reputation, lesser known and new trade marks being left without any protection at all. 28 For these purposes, I shall use the term ‘coincidence’, which is more in keeping with a combined analysis of the two subparagraphs of the provision in question and, moreover, avoids use of the terms ‘identical’ and ‘similar’. 29 Subparagraph (a) provides that the trade mark and the goods must be identical, not similar (this is usually called the condition of ‘double identity’). 30 Judgment of 22 September 2011, Interflora and Interflora British Unit (C‑323/09, EU:C:2011:604, paragraphs 33 and 34 and the case-law cited). Subparagraph (b) of the provision at issue nonetheless requires that there should be a ‘likelihood of confusion’ between the conflicting signs, from which the Court of Justice has inferred that it need only be examined whether the essential function of the trade mark is adversely affected (judgment in BergSpechte, paragraph 22). 31 The identity of one sign with the other where the latter includes the use of the same registered trade mark. See the judgment of 23 February 1999, BMW (C‑63/97, EU:C:1999:82, paragraph 38). Although not expressly mentioned there, this also follows from the context of the judgment of 25 January 2007, Adam Opel (C‑48/05, EU:C:2007:55). 32 Judgment of 8 July 2010, Portakabin (C‑558/08, EU:C:2010:416, paragraphs 47 and 48 and the case-law cited). 33 The Court has recognised both types of mark as enjoying the same protection, in the absence of any express indication in Regulation 2017/1001 that might represent a restriction of the protection afforded to services. See the judgment of 16 July 2009, American Clothing Associates v OHIM and OHIM v American Clothing Associates (C‑202/08 P and C‑208/08 P, EU:C:2009:477, paragraphs 75 to 78); and the Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in that case (EU:C:2009:299, points 111 to 114). 34 The term usually used to describe goods amenable to use for both military and civil purposes. 35 Article 74 et seq. of Regulation 2017/1001 and Articles 27 and 29 of Directive 2015/2436. 36 Article 83 et seq. of Regulation 2017/1001 and Articles 27 and 28 of Directive 2015/2436. Article 27 of that directive treats the concepts of certification mark and guarantee mark as being one and the same. 37 Judgment in Gözze, paragraph 50. 38 Paragraph 14 of the order for reference. The German Government rules out the possibility of extrapolating the ruling given in that judgment to the present dispute, on account of both the differences identified by the referring court and the fact that that judgment is primarily concerned with the interpretation of Article 15 of Regulation No 207/2009. 39 Dr Liebe is not looking to be regarded as the author of the quality label, which would be counterproductive for it, since it would diminish the impact of the rating on the consumer. 40 This is at least in part consistent with case-law, in particular that concerning Article 9(2)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001; see the judgment of 23 March 2010, Google France and Google (C‑236/08 to C‑238/08, EU:C:2010:159, paragraph 60 and the case-law cited). 41 Judgments of 16 November 2004, Anheuser-Busch (C‑245/02, EU:C:2004:717, paragraphs 60 and 61), and of 25 January 2007, Adam Opel (C‑48/05, EU:C:2007:55, paragraph 25). 42 Judgment of 5 June 2014, I (C‑255/13, EU:C:2014:1291, paragraph 55 and the case-law cited). 43 This is an unwritten condition of application; see the order of 19 February 2009, UDV North America (C‑62/08, EU:C:2009:111, paragraph 42). 44 Judgment in BergSpechte, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited. 45 Judgment of 25 July 2018, Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha and Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe (C‑129/17, EU:C:2018:594, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited). 46 Judgments of 12 November 2002, Arsenal Football Club (C‑206/01, EU:C:2002:651, paragraph 48), and of 12 July 2011, L’Oréal and Others (C‑324/09, EU:C:2011:474, paragraph 80). 47 See the definition of this function in the judgment of 25 July 2018, Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha and Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe (C‑129/17, EU:C:2018:594, paragraph 35). 48 It might be thought that this use also affected the function performed by the ÖKO-TEST trade mark as a guarantee of quality. However, I concur with Advocate General Wathelet that this is a consequence of the function as an indication of origin, since the guarantee of quality is linked to the product’s origin (Opinion in Gözze, C‑689/15, EU:C:2016:916, points 62 to 64). 49 On the function of investment, see the judgment of 25 July 2018, Mitsubishi Shoji Kaisha and Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Europe (C‑129/17, EU:C:2018:594, paragraph 36). 50 And the corresponding Article 5(3) of Directive 2008/95. 51 It cites the judgment of 14 September 1999, General Motors (C‑375/97, EU:C:1999:408, paragraph 31). 52 Points 47 to 62 of this Opinion. 53 Judgment of 6 October 2009, PAGO International (C‑301/07, EU:C:2009:611, paragraphs 24 and 25). 54 Judgment of 10 December 2015, El Corte Inglés v OHIM (C‑603/14 P, EU:C:2015:807, paragraph 38). 55 Judgment of 6 February 2014, Leidseplein Beheer and de Vries (C‑65/12, EU:C:2014:49, paragraph 34). 56 Judgment of 18 June 2009, L’Oréal and Others (C‑487/07, EU:C:2009:378, paragraphs 34 and 35 and the case-law cited). 57 Judgment of 22 September 2011, Interflora and Interflora British Unit (C‑323/09, EU:C:2011:604, paragraph 72 and the case-law cited). 58 Judgment of 18 June 2009, L’Oréal and Others (C‑487/07, EU:C:2009:378, paragraph 40). 59 Judgment of 18 June 2009, L’Oréal and Others (C‑487/07, EU:C:2009:378, paragraph 41). 60 Judgment of 20 July 2017, Ornua (C‑93/16, EU:C:2017:571, paragraph 58 and the case-law cited).