Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 11.9.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 321/28 |

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 29 June 2023 — LEGO Juris A/S v ‘SZOTI’ Ipari, Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft.

(Case C-396/23, LEGO Juris)

(2023/C 321/35)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Fővárosi Törvényszék

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant for customs intervention: LEGO Juris A/S

Party opposing customs intervention:
‘SZOTI’ Ipari, Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Kft.

Questions referred

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | Is an approach taken in the national case-law of a Member State compatible with EU law where it classifies unauthorised use of a mark, such as the use at issue in the main proceedings, as an infringement of a mark that protects a quasi-photographic representation of one of the building blocks of a construction toy where that use is characterised by the fact that the closed package of the modular construction toy at issue contains a building block (‘piece’) whose shape may be confused with the representation of the block protected by the mark, and assembly instructions that represent that piece in a manner capable of being confused with the mark, whereas neither the representation of the block protected by the mark nor the sign that may be confused with that representation is shown on the outside of the closed package of the construction toy or is shown there only in part, and no other element of the packaging refers to the proprietor of the mark? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | If the use of the mark described above must be found to be use against which the proprietor of the mark is entitled to take action under Article 10(2)(b) of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, [(1)](#ntr1-C_2023321EN.01002802-E0001) must that article be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of the mark is entitled to require suspension of the importation into the country of the goods comprising the construction toy as a whole and, for that purpose, detention of those goods, even where the use of the mark takes place only through one piece or a small number of pieces of the construction toy — which can be separated from the goods and are technically equivalent to other pieces — and through the representation of a piece or those pieces in the assembly instructions? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 3. | If EU law must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of the mark is entitled to bring claims relating to the goods as a whole, even where the use of the mark takes place only through one piece or a small number of pieces of the construction toy — which can be separated from the goods and are technically equivalent to other pieces — and by the representation of that piece or those pieces in the assembly instructions, is it compatible with EU law for the Member State courts to have discretion not to order a prohibition on the continued importation of the construction toy into the country and, accordingly, to refuse the application for interim measures seeking the detention of the construction toy, taking into consideration the fact that there is only a partial infringement where it relates to only one piece or a small number of pieces contained in a closed package; the fact that the infringement is slight and of a low level of severity in relation to the goods as a whole; and the interests of unrestricted trade in a mainly uncontroversial construction toy? |

---

---

[Top](#document1)