Case C-98/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark)) — Martin Blomqvist v Rolex SA, Manufacture des Montres Rolex SA, (Request for a preliminary ruling — Regulation No 1383/2003 — Measures to prevent counterfeit or pirated goods being placed on the market — Article 2 — Scope of the Regulation — Private sale by internet of a counterfeit watch from a non-member country to an individual residing in a Member State — Seizure of the watch by the customs authorities on entry into the territory of the Member State — Lawfulness of seizure — Conditions — Conditions relating to infringement of intellectual property rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 4 — Distribution to the public — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 5 — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 9 — Use in the course of trade)
Date: 2014-02-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: copyright, customs inspection, electronic commerce, industrial counterfeiting, marketing standard








C_2014093EN.01001801.xml










29.3.2014   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 93/18





Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark)) — Martin Blomqvist v Rolex SA, Manufacture des Montres Rolex SA,
(Case C-98/13) (1)

(Request for a preliminary ruling - Regulation No 1383/2003 - Measures to prevent counterfeit or pirated goods being placed on the market - Article 2 - Scope of the Regulation - Private sale by internet of a counterfeit watch from a non-member country to an individual residing in a Member State - Seizure of the watch by the customs authorities on entry into the territory of the Member State - Lawfulness of seizure - Conditions - Conditions relating to infringement of intellectual property rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 4 - Distribution to the public - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 5 - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 9 - Use in the course of trade)
2014/C 93/28
Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Martin Blomqvist

Defendants: Rolex SA, Manufacture des Montres Rolex SA,

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10), Article 5(1) and (3) 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 (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25), Article 9(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) and Article 2(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights (OJ 2003 L 196, p. 7) — Measures to prevent counterfeit or pirated goods being placed on the market — Individual residing in a Member State who bought a counterfeit watch for private use from the website of a seller from a non-member country — Seizure of that watch sent by post to the buyer, and suspension of customs clearance of the watch by the authorities of that Member State.

Operative part of the judgment

Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights must be interpreted as meaning that the holder of an intellectual property right over goods sold to a person residing in the territory of a Member State through an online sales website in a non-member country enjoys the protection afforded to that holder by that regulation at the time when those goods enter the territory of that Member State merely by virtue of the acquisition of those goods. It is not necessary, in addition, for the goods at issue to have been the subject, prior to the sale, of an offer for sale or advertising targeting consumers of that State.


(1)  OJ C 129, 4.5.2013