Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2019:261
Date: 2019-03-27
Language of the case: Finnish
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling;Reference for a preliminary ruling - decision unnecessary
Origin: Finland

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 3 October 2017 — Oy Hartwall Ab (Case C-578/17) Language of the case: Finnish Referring court Korkein hallinto-oikeus Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Oy Hartwall Ab Other interested parties: Patentti- ja rekisterihallitus Questions referred For the interpretation of Article 2 of Directive 2008/95/EC 1 and the condition relating to the distinctive character of a trade mark within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) thereof, is it of relevance whether the trade mark is to be registered as a figurative mark or a colour mark? If the classification of the mark as a colour mark or figurative mark is of importance in the assessment of its distinctive character, is the mark, regardless of its representation as an image, to be registered as a colour mark in accordance with the trade mark application, or can it be registered only as a figurative mark? If it is possible to register, as a colour mark, a mark represented in the form of a drawing in the trade mark application, is it necessary for the registration as a colour mark of a mark which has been graphically illustrated in the trade mark application with the accuracy required by the case-law of the Court of Justice relating to colour marks (and which is not the registration as a mark of a colour in itself, abstract, without shape or contours), is it necessary to submit in addition solid evidence of use as required by the Patentti- ja rekisterihallitus or any such evidence? ____________ 1 OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25.