Case C-334/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 23 May 2022 — Audi AG v GQ
Date: 2022-05-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, motor vehicle industry, registered trade mark, spare part, trade-mark law, vehicle parts








C_2022318EN.01002701.xml










22.8.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 318/27






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 23 May 2022 — Audi AG v GQ
(Case C-334/22)
(2022/C 318/39)
Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Audi AG

Defendant: GQ

Question referred







1.


Must Article 14(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (1) be interpreted as precluding the trade mark proprietor / court from prohibiting a third party from using in the course of trade a sign which is identical or confusingly similar to an EU trade mark, in relation to automotive spare parts (radiator grilles) where that sign constitutes a mounting element for an automotive accessory (an emblem reflecting the EU trade mark), and:






—


where it is technically possible to affix the original emblem reflecting the EU trade mark to an automotive spare part (radiator grille) without reproducing on that part a sign identical or confusingly similar to the EU trade mark;
or in a situation










—


where it is technically impossible to affix the original emblem reproducing the EU trade mark to an automotive spare part (radiator grille) without reproducing on that part a sign identical or confusingly similar to the EU trade mark?










—


if the answer to any of the questions in 1(a) is in the affirmative:














2.


What evaluation criteria should be used in such cases to determine whether the use of an EU trade mark is consistent with honest practices in industrial and commercial matters?










3.


Must Article 9(2) and Article 9(3)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark be interpreted as meaning that, where the trade mark is included in the shape of an automotive part and in the absence in Regulation 2017/1001 of a clause that would be similar to the repairs clause in Article 110(1) of Council Regulation (EC) 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs, (2) the trade mark does not fulfil a designation function in that situation?










4.


Must Article 9(2) and Article 9(3)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark be interpreted as meaning that, where the mounting element for a trade mark, which reflects the shape of the trade mark or is confusingly similar to it, is included in the shape of an automotive part and in the absence in Regulation 2017/1001 of a clause that would be similar to the repairs clause in Article 110(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs, that mounting element cannot be regarded as a trade mark with a designation function even if it is identical to the trade mark or confusingly similar to it?






(1)  OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1.