natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Med sit første spørgsmål ønsker den nationale ret klarlagt, om det, såfremt der rejses et spørgsmål om fortolkningen af direktivet under en sag, der verserer i en af Benelux' medlemsstater og vedrører fortolkningen af Beneluxvaremærkeloven, er den øverste nationale domstol eller Benelux-Domstolen, der er den nationale ret, hvis afgørelser ifølge de nationale retsregler ikke kan appelleres, og som derfor i henhold til traktatens artikel 177, stk. 3, er pligtig at indbringe sagen for Domstolen.
By its first question, the Hoge Raad asks whether, in a case where a question relating to the interpretation of the Directive is raised in proceedings in one of the Benelux Member States concerning the interpretation of the Uniform Benelux Law on Trade Marks, it is the highest national court or the Benelux Court which is the national court against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law and which is therefore obliged under the third paragraph of Article 177 of the Treaty to make a reference to the Court of Justice.
Hvad i øvrigt angår spørgsmålet, om Hoge Raad kan være forpligtet til at forelægge Domstolen præjudicielle spørgsmål, står det fast, at en sådan øverste national ret, hvis afgørelser ifølge de nationale retsregler ej heller kan appelleres, ikke kan afsige dom uden først at forelægge sagen for Domstolen i henhold til traktatens artikel 177, stk. 3, når der rejses et spørgsmål om fortolkningen af fællesskabsretten for den.
First of all, it appears that the question submitted by the Hoge Raad is based, quite rightly, on the premiss that a court such as the Benelux Court is a court which may submit questions to this Court for a preliminary ruling.
For det første fremgår det, at den nationale ret med sit spørgsmål korrekt går ud fra den lurudsætning, at en ret som Benelux-Domstolen er en ÌPS"ÌI.", der k?n forelægge præjudicielle spørgsmål
As regards, further, the question whether the Hoge Raad may be obliged to refer questions to this Court, there is no question that such a national supreme court, against whose decisions likewise no appeal lies under national law, may not give judgment without first making a reference to this Court under the third paragraph of Article 177 of the Treaty when a question relating to the interpretation of Community law is raised before it.
Der er nemlig ingen gyldig grund til, ?i er. ret, der er fælles for fiere medlemsstater, ikke skulle kunne forelægge Domstolen præjudicielle spørgsmål i lighed med hver enkelt af disse medlcrr.jstatcrs retter.
There is no good reason why such a court, common to a number of Member States, should not be able to submit questions to this Court, in the same way as courts or tribunals of any of those Member States.
fritage Hoge Raad for pligten til at stille et materielt set identisk spørgsmål, før den afsiger dom.
Conversely, if no reference has been made to the Court of Justice by a court like the Hoge Raad, a court like the Benelux Court must submit the question to the Court of Justice, whose ruling may then remove from the Hoge Raad the obligation to submit a question in substantially the same terms before giving its judgment.
Det andet spørgsmål af varemærkeindehaverens legitime interesse i at blive beskyttet mod forhandlere, der anvender hans varemærke i reklameøjemed på en måde, som kan krænke varemærkets omdømme, og forhandlerens interesse i at kunne videresælge de pågældende varer under anvendelse af de former for reklamering, som er sædvanlige i hans branche.
It follows that, where a reseller makes use of a trade mark in order to bring the public's attention to further commercialization of trademarked goods, a balance must be struck between the legitimate interest of the trade mark owner in being protected against resellers using his trade mark for advertising in a manner which could damage the reputation of the trade mark and the reseller's legitimate interest in being able to resell the goods in question by using advertising methods which are customary in his sector of trade.
Den nationale rets andet spørgsmål går reelt ud på, om direktivets artikel 5, 6 og 7 skal fortolkes således, at når varer, der er forsynet med et mærke, er blevet bragt på det fælles marked af indehaveren af mærket eller med hans samtykke, har en forhandler, ud over muligheden for at videresælge disse varer, også mulighed for at anvende mærket for at gøre offentligheden bekendt med videreforhandlingen af disse varer.
By its second question, the Hoge Raad asks in substance whether, on a proper interpretation of Articles 5 to 7 of the Directive, when trademarked goods have been put on the Community market by or with the consent of the proprietor of the trade mark, a reseller, besides being free to resell those goods, is also free to make use of the trade mark to bring to the public's attention the further commercialization of those goods.
I tilfælde som det i hovedsagen foreliggende, hvor det drejer sig om prestigebetonede luksusvarer, må forhandleren ikke handle på en måde, der er illoyal i forhold til varemærkeindehaverens legitime interesser.
As regards the instant case, which concerns prestigious, luxury goods, the reseller must not act unfairly in relation to the legitimate interests of the trade mark owner.
Han skal altså bestræbe sig på at undgå, at hans reklamering påvirker varemærkets værdi ved at skade de pågældende varers stil og prestigebetonede image samt deres luksuriøse udstråling.
He must therefore endeavour to prevent his advertising from affecting the value of the trade mark by detracting from the allure and prestigious image of the goods in question and from their aura of luxury.
Det bemærkes, at mens den ret, som i henhold til direktivets artikel S gives indehaveren til at forbyde brug af mærket for varer, konsumeres, når disse er markedsført af ham selv eller med hans samtykke, gælder det samme med hensyn til retten til at anvende mærket for at gøre offentligheden bekendt med videreforhandlingen af disse varer.
If the right to prohibit the use of his trade mark in relation to goods, conferred on the proprietor of a trade mark under Article 5 of the Directive, is exhausted once the goods have been put on the market by himself or with his consent, the same applies as regards the right to use the trade mark for the purpose of bringing to the public's attention the further commercialization of those goods.
En sådan alvorlig skade for varemærkets omdømme kan således opstå, fordi forhandleren i den reklamefolder, han udbreder, ikke har sørget for ikke at placere varemærket i omgivelser, der kan risikere alvorligt at forringe det image, som det er lykkedes indehaveren at skabe omkring sit varemærke.
For example, such serious damage to the reputation of the trade mark could occur if, in an advertising leaflet distributed by him, the reseller did not take care to avoid putting the trade mark in a context which might seriously detract from the image which the trade mark owner has succeeded in creating around his trade mark.
Det sjette spørgsmål
The sixth question
Det følger nemlig af Domstolens praksis, at direktivets artikel 7 skal fortolkes på baggrund af traktatens regler om frie varebevægelser, herunder artikel 36, og at reglen om konsumption har til formål at hindre, at det tillades indehaverne at opdele de nationale markeder og derved medvirke til at opretholde de prisforskelle, der kan være mellem medlemsstaterne.
It follows from the case-law of the Court that Article 7 of the Directive is to be interpreted in the light of the rules of the Treaty relating to the free movement of goods, in particular Article 36 and that the purpose of the 'exhaustion of rights' rule is to prevent owners of trade marks from being allowed to partition national markets and thus facilitate the maintenance of price differences which may exist between Member States.
Hvis retten til at bruge mærket til at bekendtgøre den videre forhandling imidlertid ikke blev konsumeret på samme måde som retten til forhandling, ville sidstnævnte blive gjort betydeligt vanskeligere, og formålet med reglen om konsumption i artikel 7 ville blive forskertset.
Even if the right to make use of a trade mark in order to attract attention to further commercialization were not exhausted in the same way as the right of resale, the latter would be made considerably more difficult and the purpose of the 'exhaustion of rights' rule laid down in Article 7 would thus be undermined.
Den nationale ret spørger endvidere, om det samme gælder, når forhandleren ved den måde, hvorpå han gør brug af varemærket i sin reklamering påfører dette varemærkes luksuriøse og prestigebetonede image skade, eller når offentliggørelsen og mangfoldiggørelsen af dette sker under sådanne omstændigheder, at der kan påføres indehaveren af ophavsretten skade.
By its sixth question the Hoge Raad asks in substance whether Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty preclude the owner of a trade mark or holder of copyright relating to the bottles and packaging which he uses for his goods from preventing a reseller, by invoking the trade mark right or copyright, from advertising the further commercialization of those goods in a manner customary to retail traders in the relevant sector. It asks, further, whether this is also the case
ophavsmandens to væsentlige særrettigheder, nemlig eneretten til at fremføre værket og eneretten til at fremstille eksemplarer af det, anfægtes ikke af reglerne i traktaten.
according to the case-law of the Court, the grounds of protection of industrial and commercial property referred to in Article 36 include the protection conferred by copyright.
i henhold til artikel 30. Det er herved tilstrækkeligt at henvise til, at der ifølge forelæggelsesdommen i tvisten i hovedsagen er tale om varer, som forhandleren har erhvervet gennem parallelimport, og at et forbud mod reklamering som det, der begæres i hovedsagen, ville gøre disse varers forhandling og dermed deres adgang til markedet betydeligt vanskeligere.
where the reseller, as a result of the manner in which he uses the trade mark in his advertising material, damages the luxurious and prestigious image of the trade mark, or where the publication or reproduction of the trade mark takes place in circumstances liable to cause damage to the person entitled to the copyright.
Da der er tale om et spørgsmål vedrørende en varemærkeindehavers ret, bemærkes, at ifølge Domstolens praksis ska! traktatens artikel 36 og direktivets artikel 7 fortolkes på samme måde.
Literary and artistic works may be the subject of commercial exploitation, whether by way of public performance or by way of the reproduction and marketing of the recordings made of them, and the two essential rights of the author, namely the exclusive right of performance and the exclusive right of reproduction, are not called in question by the rules of the Treaty.
Det følger desuden af retspraksis, at den kommercielle udnyttelse af ophavsretten ganske vist er en indtægtskilde for sin indehaver, men ligeledes er en form for kontrol med salget for indehaveren, og at den kommercielle udnyttelse af ophavsretten ud fra dette synspunkt rejser samme problemer som udnyttelsen af en anden industriel eller kommerciel ejendomsret.
It is also clear from the case-law that, while the commercial exploitation of copyright is a source of remuneration for the copyright owner, it also constitutes a form of control on marketing exercisable by the owner and that, from this point of view, commercial exploitation of copyright raises the same issues as that of any other industrial or commercial property.
Hvad angår den del af det sjette spørgsmål, som vedrører ophavsretten, bemærkes, at ifølge Domstolens praksis omfatter hensynet til beskyttelse af industriel og kommerciel ejendomsret i henhold til artikel 36 også den beskyttelse, ophavsretten giver.
Contrary to Dior's contention, the national court is quite right in considering that a prohibition such as that envisaged in the main proceedings may constitute a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction, in principle prohibited by Article 30.
I betragtning af denne praksis — og uden at det er nødvendigt at tage stilling til, om en ophavsret og en varemærkeret kan påberåbes samtidig for samme vare — bemærkes blot, at under omstændigheder som de i hovedsagen foreliggende kan den beskyttelse, som ophavsretten giver med hensyn til mangfoldiggørelse af beskyttede værker i forhandlerens reklamemateriale, under alle omstændigheder ikke være mere vidtgående en den, som under samme omstændigheder gives indehaveren af en varemærkeret.
Having regard to that case-law - there being no need to consider the question whether copyright and trade mark rights may be relied on simultaneously in respect of the same product , it is sufficient to hold that, in circumstances such as those in point in the main proceedings, the protection conferred by copyright as regards the reproduction of protected works in a reseller's advertising may not, in any event, be broader than that which is conferred on a trade mark owner in the same circumstances.
Artikel 5 og 7 i direktiv 89/104 skal fortolkes således, at når varer, der er forsynet med et varemærke, markedsføres i Fællesskabet af indehaveren af varemærket eller med hans samtykke, har en forhandler, ud over muligheden f or at videresælge disse varer, ligeledes mulighed for at bruge varemærket til at gøre offentligheden bekendt med videreforhandlingen af varerne.
Where a question relating to the interpretation of the First Council Directive (89/104/EEC) of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade maries is raised in proceedings in one of the Benelux Member States concerning the interpretation of the Uniform Benelux Law on Trade Marks, a court against whose decisions there is no remedy under national law, as is the case with both the Benelux Court and the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, must make a reference to the Court of Justice under the third paragraph of Article 177 of the EC Treaty.
Indehaveren af et varemærke kan ikke i henhold til direktivets artikel 7, stk 2, i direktiv 891104 modsætte sijg, at en forhandler, der sædvanligvis forhandler artikler af samme art, men ikke nødvendigvis af samme kvalitet som de varer, der er forsynet med varemærket,
However, that obligation loses its purpose and is thus emptied of its substance when the question raised is substantially the same as a question which has already been the subject of a preliminary ruling in the same national proceedings.
EF-traktatens artikel 30 og 36 skal fortolkes således, at indehaveren af en varemærkeret etter en ophavsret ikke kan modsætte sig, at en forhandler, der sædvanligvis sælger artikler af samme art, men ikke nødvendigvis af samme kvalitet som de beskyttede varer, bruger disse i overensstemmelse med de fremgangsmåder, der er sædvanlige i hans branche, for at gøre offentligheden bekendt med videreforhandlingen af varerne, medmindre det godtgøres, at brugen af de nævnte varer til dette formål, i betragtning af de særlige omstændigheder i hvert enkelt tilfælde, tilføjer deres omdømme alvorlig skade.*
On a proper interpretation of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty, the proprietor of a trade mark or holder of copyright may not oppose their use by a reseller who habitually markets articles of the same kind, but not necessarily of the same quality, as the protected goods, in ways customary in the resellers sector of trade, for the purpose of bringing to the public's attention the further commercialization of those goods, unless it is established that, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case, the use of those goods for that purpose seriously damages their reputation.'
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 29. april 1997.
Advocate General FG. Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 29 April 1997.
Han fandt, at spørgsmålene skulle besvares således:
He was of the opinion that the questions referred by the Hoge Raad should be answered as follows:
»1) Såfremt der under en sag om varemærkeret i et af Benelux-landene i forbindelse med fortolkningen af den ensartede Benelux-lov om varemærker opstår et spørgsmål om fortolkningen af Rådet for De Europæiske Fællesskabers første direktiv af 21. december 1988 om tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om varemærker (89/104/EØF), og sagen forelægges for Cour Benelux eller skal forelægges for Cour Benelux til præjudiciel afgørelse af en ret i et af Benelux-landene, hvis afgørelser ifølge de nationale retsregler ikke kan appelleres i EF-traktatens artikel 177, stk. 3' forstand, vil denne bestemmelse være iagttaget, såfremt Domstolen får mulighed for at træffe præjudiciel afgørelse inden den nationale retsinstans træffer endelig afgørelse i realiteten.
Where, in proceedings relating to trade marks in one of the Benelux countries in connection with the interpretation of the Uniform Benelux Law on Trade Marks, a question relating to the interpretation of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks arises, and a reference is made or is to be made to the Benelux Court by a court of one of the Benelux countries against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law within the meaning of the third paragraph of Article 177 of the EC Treaty, the requirements of that paragraph will be satisfied provided that the Court of Justice is enabled to give a ruling before the national court takes a final decision on the substance of the case.
Direktivet og navnlig dets artikel 5, 6 og 7, skal fortolkes således, at når varer er blevet bragt i handlen i Fællesskabet af varemærkets indehaver eller med dennes samtykke, kan en forhandler principielt anvende dette varemærke ved annoncering til salg til offentligheden.
The abovementioned Directive, and in particular Articles 5, 6 and 7 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, where goods have been placed on the market in the Community by the trade mark owner or with his consent, a reseller is in principle free to use that trade mark for the purposes of bringing his sales to the attention of the public.
Varemærkeindehaveren kan imidlertid modsætte sig, at en forhandler anvender varemærket til reklameformål, når reklamen må antages groft at krænke varemærkets og dets indehavers anseelse.
The owner of the trade mark may however oppose the use of his mark by a reseller for the purposes of advertising where such advertising is liable to damage significantly the reputation of the trade mark and of its owner.
For så vidt angår luksusvarer som f.eks. parfumer, kan en sådan krænkelse bestå i, at varernes image som luksusvarer forringes.
In the case of luxury goods such as perfumes, such damage may consist in damage to the luxurious image of the goods.
Det kræves imidlertid, at risikoen for, at varemærkets anseelse lider alvorlig skade, er behørigt godtgjort.
However, the risk of significant damage to the reputation of the trade mark must be properly substantiated.
EF-traktatens artikel 30 og 36 skal fortolkes således, at varemærkets indehaver eller ophavsmanden til flakoner og emballager til disse varer, kan gøre sin varemærkeret eller sin ophavsret gældende for at forhindre al reklame, der må antages at ville påføre varernes anseelse alvorlig skade.
Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that the owner of a trade mark or the holder of copyright relating to the bottles and packaging used for his goods is entitled to rely on his trade mark or copyright to prevent advertising which is liable to damage significantly the
Præjudiciel »Social sikring — særlige ikkebidragspligtige ydelser — artikel 4, stk 2a, og artikel 10a i forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 — invalidepension — ikke mulighed for at modtage ydelsen i et andet land* (Domstolens plenum)
Preliminary ruling (Social security — Special non-contributory benefits —Articles 4(2a) and 10a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Disability living allowance — Non-exportability) (Full Court) and the higher rate of the mobility component of DLA with effect from 1 September 1993.
Det står fast, at disse ydelser er bidragspligtige og som sådanne er omfattet af anvendelsesområdet for artikel 10 i forordning nr. 1408/71.
It is common ground that this is a contributory benefit and, as such, falls within the scope of Article 10 of Regulation No 1408/71.
Ved kendelse af 17. januar 1996, indgået til Domstolen den 22. januar 1996, har Social Security Commissioner forelagt to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen og gyldigheden af artikel 4, stk. 2a, og artikel 10a i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 af 14. juni 1971, som ændret og ajourført ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2001/83 af 2. juni 1983 (herefter »forordning nr. 1408/71«), og som ændret ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1247/92 af 30. april 1992.
By order of 17 January 1996, received at the Court on 22 January 1996, the Social Security Commissioner referred for a preliminary ruling two questions on the interpretation and validity of Articles 4(2a) and 10a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (hereinafter 'Regulation No 1408/7Γ), as subsequently amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 of 30 April 1992.
I november 1993 besluttede Kelvin Snares at bosætte sig på Tenerife, hvor hans nærmeste familie, bl.a. hans mor, bor, for at hun kunne passe ham. Kelvin Snares meddelte de britiske myndigheder, at hans fravær ikke var midlertidigt, og at han ville sælge sin faste ejendom i Det Forenede Kongerige.
Those questions were raised in a dispute between Mr Snares, a United Kingdom national, and the Adjudication Officer concerning the award of the disability living allowance (hereinafter 'DLA') provided for under United Kingdom legislation.
Spørgsmålene er blevet rejst under en sag mellem en britisk statsborger, Kehin Snares, og Adjudication Officer vedrørende tilkendelse af »disability living allowance« (invalidepension, herefter »DLA«) i henhold til Det Forenede Kongeriges lovgivning.
In November 1993, Mr Snares decided to settle in Tenerife, where his immediate family, and in particular his mother, live, so that she could look after him.
Den 6. januar 1994 traf Adjudication Officer afgørelse om, at Kelvin Snares fra afrejsetidspunktet den 13. november 1993 ikke var berettiget til DLA, og denne afgørelse blev efter fornyet prøvelse stadfæstet den 16. februar 1994.
He informed the United Kingdom authorities that his absence would not be temporary and that he would be selling the home that he owned in the United Kingdom.
Kelvin Snares indbragte afgørelserne for Salisbury Social Security Appeal Tribunal, som den 21. juli 1994 stadfæstede dem og fastslog, at han ikke var berettiget til nogen af de ydelser, der indgår i DLA, så længe han var bosat på Tenerife.
On 6 January 1994, the Adjudication Officer decided that his entitlement to DLA ceased with effect from his departure on 13 November 1993. That decision was confirmed on review on 16 February 1994.
KeMn Snares har arbejdet som lønmodtager i Det Forenede Kongerige i 25 år og har i den forbindelse betalt bidrag til den sociale sikringsordning i denne stat.
Mr Snares worked in the United Kingdom as an employee for 25 years and, as such, paid contributions to the United Kingdom social security scheme.
I april 1993 blev han i en alder af 39 år udsat foi en alvorlig ulykke, som bevirkede, at han blev bevægelseshæmmet i alvorlig grad.
In April 1993, when he was 39, he suffered a serious accident which left him with severely impaired mobility.
Han ansøgte herefter om DLA, og ansøgningen blev anset for indgivet den 1. september 1993.
He applied for DLA, and his claim was treated as having been made on 1 September 1993.
Efter en vurdering af, i hvilket omfang Snares havde behov for pleje, og af hans førlighed, tilkendte Adjudication Officer ham med virkning fra den 1. september 1993 DLA bestående af plejeydelse efter cien mellemste sats og mobiliietsydelse efter den højeste sats.
On the basis of the assessment of his care and mobility needs, the Adjudication Officer awarded Mr Snares the middle rate of the care component