Case C-693/25, MPM-QUALITY: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze (Czech Republic) lodged on 3 November 2025 – MPM – QUALITY a.s. v ELTON hodinářská, a.s.
Date: 2025-11-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, limitation of legal proceedings, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_202600631EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/631


9.2.2026






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze (Czech Republic) lodged on 3 November 2025 – MPM – QUALITY a.s. v ELTON hodinářská, a.s.


(Case C-693/25, MPM-QUALITY)

(C/2026/631)
Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Městský soud v Praze

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: MPM – QUALITY a.s.

Defendant: ELTON hodinářská, a.s.

Questions referred







1.


Should Article 209(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (‘the Regulation’), in conjunction with Articles 61(2) and 137(1) thereof (Article 165(5) in conjunction with Articles 54(2) and 110(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (‘the original Regulation’)) be interpreted as meaning that the limitation period for bringing an action to prohibit the use of a later EU trade mark may also be suspended or interrupted on the basis of a legal circumstance other than the submission of an actual claim for the prohibition of the use of the EU trade mark?






(a)


If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, should the abovementioned provisions be interpreted such that the limitation period is affected by the fact that an earlier national trade mark, which conflicts with an EU trade mark, has for a certain period of time (erroneously) been removed from the national register, but the registration of that national trade mark is subsequently renewed because the administrative courts annul the administrative authority’s cancellation decision on the grounds of unlawfulness? In other words, does the limitation period for bringing an action under Article 209(5) of the Regulation cease to run during the period when the national trade mark has been (erroneously) removed from the register?










(b)


If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, does the fact that the national trademark has been (erroneously) removed from the register for a certain period of time cause the suspension or interruption of the limitation period? In other words, after the national trade mark has been reinstated in the register, does the original five-year period (the remaining part thereof) continue to run, or does a new five-year period begin?










(c)


In connection with the previous questions, what then is the effect on the limitation period under Articles 209(5), 137(1) and 61(2) of the Regulation of the circumstance that the proprietor of the national trademark brought an action under Article 209(5) of the Regulation in due time, but the action was dismissed with final effect because, at the time of the national court’s decision on that action, the applicant’s national trade mark had been removed from the register? In such a case, should the limitation period (or, if suspended, the remaining part thereof) for bringing a second successive action (after renewal of the entry of the national trade mark in the register) be calculated from the date of the final dismissal of the first action, or only [from] the date of the re-registration of the national trade mark?














2.


Do the provisions of Article 209(5) of the Regulation, in conjunction with Articles 61(2) and 137(1) thereof (Article 165(5) in conjunction with Articles 54(2) and 110(1) of the original Regulation) preclude a situation whereby the right to prohibit the use of a European trade mark on the territory of an acceding Member State becomes time-barred under national law before the expiry of the limitation period laid down in the Regulation and where the court does not allow the prohibition on the basis on a time-bar plea raised under national law by the proprietor of the EU trade mark?










3.


Should Article 209(5) of the Regulation (Article 165(5) of the original Regulation) be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of an earlier national trade mark may successfully seek to prohibit the use of a later European trade mark in an acceding Member State, even when the proprietor of the later European trade mark used the sign constituting its dominant element on the territory of that State before the earlier national trade mark was applied for and therefore has rights as the prior user of the sign constituting the dominant element of the European trade mark in that Member State?






(1)  
            OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1.

(2)  
            OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/631/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)