CELEX: 62012CN0355
Language: en
Date: 2012-07-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-355/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 26 July 2012 — Nintendo Co., Ltd and Others v PC Box Srl and 9Net Srl

29.9.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 295/23
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 26 July 2012 — Nintendo Co., Ltd and Others v PC Box Srl and 9Net Srl
   (Case C-355/12)
   2012/C 295/41
   Language of the case: Italian
   
      Referring court
   
   Tribunale di Milano
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Nintendo Co., Ltd, Nintendo of America Inc., Nintendo of Europe GmbH
   
      Defendants: PC Box Srl, 9Net Srl
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Must Article 6 of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) be interpreted, including in the light of recital 48 in the preamble thereto, as meaning that the protection of technological protection measures attaching to copyright-protected works or other subject matter may also extend to a system, produced and marketed by the same undertaking, in which a device is installed in the hardware which is capable of recognising on a separate housing mechanism containing the protected works (videogames produced by the same undertaking as well as by third parties, proprietors of the protected works) a recognition code, in the absence of which the works in question cannot be visualised or used in conjunction with that system, the equipment in question thus incorporating a system which is not interoperable with complementary equipment or products other than those of the undertaking which produces the system itself?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Should it be necessary to consider whether or not the use of a product or component whose purpose is to circumvent a technological protection measure predominates over other commercially important purposes or uses, may Article 6 of Directive 2001/29/EC be interpreted, including in the light of recital 48 in the preamble thereto, as meaning that the national court must adopt criteria in assessing that question which give prominence to the particular intended use attributed by the right holder to the product in which the protected content is inserted or, in the alternative or in addition, criteria of a quantative nature relating to the extent of the uses under comparison, or criteria of a qualitative nature, that is, relating to the nature and importance of the uses themselves?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.