Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 16.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 15/12 |

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 November 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie — Poland) — Harman International Industries Inc. v AB SA

(Case C-175/21) [(1)](#ntr1-C_2023015EN.01001201-E0001)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 34 and 36 TFEU - Free movement of goods - Intellectual property - EU trade mark - Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 - Article 15 - Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark - Placing on the market within the European Economic Area (EEA) - Consent of the proprietor of the trade mark - Place of first marketing of products by the proprietor of the trade mark or with its consent - Proof - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Effective judicial protection - Operative part of judicial decisions not identifying the products covered - Difficulties in implementation - Restricted scope of action before the competent court for enforcement - Fair trial - Rights of the defence - Principle of the equality of arms)

(2023/C 15/11)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Harman International Industries Inc.

Defendant: AB SA

Operative part of the judgment

Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark, read in combination with the second sentence of Article 36 TFEU, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. and Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights,

must be interpreted as

not precluding a judicial practice by which the operative part of the decision upholding an action for infringement of an EU trade mark is drafted in terms which, owing to their general nature, leaves it to the authority with competence to enforce that decision to determine the products to which that decision applies, provided that, in the context of the enforcement procedure, the defendant is permitted to contest the determination of the products covered by that procedure and that a court may examine and decide, in compliance with the provisions of Directive 2004/48, which products have in fact been placed on the market in the European Economic Area by the proprietor or with its consent.

---

---

[Top](#document1)