CELEX: 62011CN0553
Language: en
Date: 2011-11-02 00:00:00
Title: Case C-553/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 November 2011 — Bernhard Rintisch v Klaus Eder

17.3.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 80/5
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 November 2011 — Bernhard Rintisch v Klaus Eder
   (Case C-553/11)
   2012/C 80/06
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Bundesgerichtshof
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Bernhard Rintisch
   
      Defendant: Klaus Eder
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Must Article 10(1) and (2)(a) of Directive 89/104/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that in principle this provision generally precludes a national rule pursuant to which the use of a trade mark (Trade Mark 1) must be presumed even if the trade mark (Trade Mark 1) is used in a form differing from the form in which it was registered, without the differences altering the distinctive character of the trade mark (Trade Mark 1), and if the trade mark in the form used is also registered (Trade Mark 2)?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               If question 1 is answered in the negative:
               Is the national provision described above under 1 compatible with Directive 89/104/EEC if the national provision is interpreted restrictively as meaning that it is not applicable to a trade mark (Trade Mark 1) which is registered only in order to secure or expand the protection of another registered trade mark (Trade Mark 2) that is registered in the form in which it is used?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative or question 2 is answered in the negative:
               
                           (a)
                        
                        
                           Is there no use of a registered trade mark (Trade Mark 1) within the meaning of Article 10(1) and (2)(a) of Directive 89/104/EEC
                           
                                       (aa)
                                    
                                    
                                       if the trade mark proprietor uses the form of a sign which differs only in elements from the form in which it (Trade Mark 1) and a further trade mark (Trade Mark 2) of the trade mark proprietor are registered but the differences do not alter the distinctive character of the trade marks (Trade Mark 1 and Trade Mark 2);
                                    
                                 
                                       (bb)
                                    
                                    
                                       if the trade mark proprietor uses two forms of sign, neither of which corresponds to the registered trade mark (Trade Mark 1), but one of the forms used (Form 1) is the same as another registered trade mark (Trade Mark 2) of the trade mark proprietor and the second form used by the trade mark proprietor (Form 2) differs in elements from both registered trade marks (Trade Mark 1 and Trade Mark 2), without the differences altering the distinctive character of the trade marks, and if this form of sign (Form 2) displays greater similarity to the other trade mark (Trade Mark 2) of the trade mark proprietor?
                                    
                                 
                     
                           (b)
                        
                        
                           Is a court of a Member State permitted to apply a national provision (here the second sentence of Paragraph 26(3) of the Law on trade marks (MarkenG)) which conflicts with a provision of a directive (here Article 10(1) and (2)(a) of Directive 89/104/EEC) in cases in which the facts of the case had already occurred prior to a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in which indications of the incompatibility of the Member State’s legislation with the provision of the directive became apparent for the first time (the judgment of 13 September 2007 in Case C-234/06 Il Ponte Finanziaria v OHIM (BAINBRIDGE) [2007] ECR I-7333) if the national court values the reliance of a party to the court proceedings on the validity of his position, secured under constitutional law, more highly than the interest in the implementation of a provision of the directive?
                        
                     
         
      (1)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1).