Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 17.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 206/9 |

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 April 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — ÖKO-Test Verlag GmbH v Dr. Rudolf Liebe Nachf. GmbH & Co. KG

(Case C-690/17) [(1)](#ntr1-C_2019206EN.01000901-E0001)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Trade marks - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 9(1) - Directive 2008/95/EC - Article 5(1) and (2) - Rights afforded by a trade mark - Individual trade mark consisting of a quality label)

(2019/C 206/10)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: ÖKO-Test Verlag GmbH

Defendant: Dr. Rudolf Liebe Nachf. GmbH & Co. KG

Operative part of the judgment

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | Article 9(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the [European Union] trade mark, and Article 5(1)(a) and (b) 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 they do not entitle the proprietor of an individual trade mark consisting of a quality label to oppose the affixing, by a third party, of a sign identical with, or similar to, that mark to products that are neither identical with, nor similar to, the goods or services for which that mark is registered. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | Article 9(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 5(2) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that they entitle the proprietor of an individual trade mark with a reputation, consisting of a quality label, to oppose the affixing, by a third party, of a sign identical with, or similar to, that mark to products that are neither identical with, nor similar to, the goods or services for which that mark is registered, provided that it is established that, by that affixing, the third party takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the reputation of the mark concerned or causes detriment to that distinctive character or reputation and provided that, in that case, the third party has not established the existence of a ‘due cause’, within the meaning of those provisions, in support of such affixing. |

---

---

[Top](#document1)