Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 4.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 183/4 |

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Patent- und Markensenat, Austria) — Armin Häupl v Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG

(Case C-246/05)[(1)](#ntr1-C_2007183EN.01000402-E0001)

(Trade mark law - Article 10(1) of Directive 89/104/EEC - Absence of genuine use of a trade mark - Concept of ‘date of the completion of the registration procedure’)

(2007/C 183/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Patent- und Markensenat

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Armin Häupl

Defendant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Patent- und Markensenat — Interpretation of Articles 10(1) and 12(1) of Directive 89/104/EEC: First Council Directive of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks ([OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1](./../../../legal-content/EN/AUTO/?uri=OJ:L:1989:040:TOC)) — Absence of genuine use of a mark — Reasons outside the control of the undertaking preventing it from opening supermarkets on the national territory, whereas its usual strategy is to market goods bearing that mark only in its own supermarkets — Concept of the date on which the registration procedure finishes

Operative part of the judgment

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 1) | The ‘date of the completion of the registration procedure’ within the meaning of Article 10(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be determined in each Member State in accordance with the procedural rules on registration in force in that State; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 2) | Article 12(1) of Directive 89/104 must be interpreted as meaning that obstacles having a direct relationship with a trade mark which make its use impossible or unreasonable and which are independent of the will of the proprietor of that mark constitute ‘proper reasons for non-use’ of the mark. It is for the national court or tribunal to assess the facts in the main proceedings in the light of that guidance. |

---

[Top](#document1)