Joined Cases C-720/18 and C–721/18: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 October 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Ferrari SpA v DU (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 2008/95/EC — Article 12(1) — Genuine use of trade mark — Burden of proof — Article 13 — Proof of use ‘in respect of some of the goods or services’ — Trade mark covering a car model the production of which has stopped — Use of the trade mark in respect of replacement parts as well as for services relating to that model — Use of the trade mark for used vehicles — Article 351 TFEU — Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Swiss Confederation — Reciprocal protection of patents, designs and trade marks)
Date: 2020-10-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, Germany, Switzerland, international convention, luxury products industry, motor car, provision of services, registered trade mark, trade-mark law, used goods, vehicle parts








C_2020433EN.01000701.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/7






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 October 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Ferrari SpA v DU
(Joined Cases C-720/18 and C–721/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Trade marks - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 12(1) - Genuine use of trade mark - Burden of proof - Article 13 - Proof of use ‘in respect of some of the goods or services’ - Trade mark covering a car model the production of which has stopped - Use of the trade mark in respect of replacement parts as well as for services relating to that model - Use of the trade mark for used vehicles - Article 351 TFEU - Convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Swiss Confederation - Reciprocal protection of patents, designs and trade marks)
(2020/C 433/06)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Ferrari SpA

Defendant: DU

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 12(1) and Article 13 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 must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark registered in respect of a category of goods and replacement parts thereof must be regarded as having been put to ‘genuine use’ within the meaning of Article 12(1), in connection with all the goods in that category and the replacement parts thereof, if it has been so used only in respect of some of those goods, such as high-priced luxury sports cars, or only in respect of replacement parts or accessories of some of those goods, unless it is apparent from the relevant facts and evidence that a consumer who wishes to purchase those goods will perceive them as an independent subcategory of the category of goods in respect of which the mark concerned was registered;










2.


Article 12(1) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark is capable of being put to genuine use by its proprietor when that proprietor resells second-hand goods put on the market under that mark;










3.


Article 12(1) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark is put to genuine use by its proprietor where that proprietor provides certain services connected with the goods previously sold under that mark, on condition that those services are provided under that mark;










4.


The first paragraph of Article 351 TFEU must be interpreted as allowing a court of a Member State to apply a convention concluded between a Member State of the European Union and a non-member State before 1 January 1958 or, for States acceding to the European Union, before the date of their accession, such as the Convention between Switzerland and Germany concerning the Reciprocal Protection of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, signed in Berlin on 13 April 1892, as amended, which provides that the use of a trade mark registered in that Member State in the territory of the non-member State must be taken into consideration in order to determine whether that mark has been put to ‘genuine use’ within the meaning of Article 12(1) of Directive 2008/95, until such time as one of the steps referred to in the second paragraph of Article 351 TFEU makes it possible to eliminate any incompatibilities between the TFEU and that convention;










5.


Article 12(1) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that the burden of proof that a trade mark has been put to ‘genuine use’, within the meaning of that provision, rests on the proprietor of that mark.






(1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.