CELEX: 62018CN0833
Language: en
Date: 2018-12-31 00:00:00
Title: Case C-833/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de l’entreprise de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 31 December 2018 — SI, Brompton Bicycle Ltd v Chedech / Get2Get

4.3.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 82/19
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de l’entreprise de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 31 December 2018 — SI, Brompton Bicycle Ltd v Chedech / Get2Get
      (Case C-833/18)
      (2019/C 82/21)
      Language of the case: French
      
         Referring court
      
      Tribunal de l’entreprise de Liège
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicants: SI, Brompton Bicycle Ltd
      
         Defendant: Chedech / Get2Get
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  Must EU law, in particular Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, (1) which determines, inter alia, the various exclusive rights conferred on copyright holders, in Articles 2 to 5 thereof, be interpreted as excluding from copyright protection works whose shape is necessary to achieve a technical result?
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  In order to assess whether a shape is necessary to achieve a technical result, must account be taken of the following criteria:
                  
                              —
                           
                           
                              The existence of other possible shapes which allow the same technical result to be achieved?
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              The effectiveness of the shape in achieving that result?
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              The intention of the alleged infringer to achieve that result?
                           
                        
                              —
                           
                           
                              The existence of an earlier, now expired, patent on the process for achieving the technical result sought?
                           
                        
            
         (1)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.