natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For at undgå, at den beskyttelse, der ydes varemærkeindehaveren, er forskellig fra den ene medlemsstat til den anden, tilkommer det følgelig Domstolen at foretage en ensartet fortolkning af direktivets artikel 5, stk. 1, og især af begrebet »brug«, som findes i bestemmelsen, og som er genstanden for de præjudicielle spørgsmål i den foreliggende sag.
interests which that provision aims to protect, and do not therefore fall within the concept of use within the meaning of that provision (see, with respect to a use for purely descriptive purposes relating to the characteristics of the product offered, Case C-2/00 Hölterhoff [2002], paragraph 16).
til støtte for frifindelse i sagen om varemærkekrænkelse påberåbe sig, at den påtalte brug ikke angiver en erhvervsmæssig oprindelse (dvs. en erhvervsmæssig forbindelse mellem varerne og varemærkets indehaver)?
In those circumstances, the use of a sign which is identical to the trade mark at issue in the main proceedings is hable to jeopardise the guarantee of origin which constitutes the essential function of the mark, as is apparent from the Court's case-law cited in paragraph 48 above.
Er i bekræftende fald den kendsgerning, at den pågældende brug vil blive opfattet som et tegn på opbakning af, loyalitet over for eller tilslutning til varemærkets indehaver, en tilstrækkelig forbindelse?«
It is consequently a use which the trade mark proprietor may prevent in accordance with Article 5(1) of the Directive.
Det bemærkes for det andet, at direktivet, således som det fremgår af dets første betragtning, har til formål at fjerne forskellighederne mellem medlemsstaternes lovgivninger om varemærker, som kan hindre de frie varebevægelser og den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser samt fordreje konkurrencevilkårene i fællesmarkedet.
In this respect, it is clear that the situation in question in the main proceedings is fundamentally different from that in Hölterhoff.
Den i hovedsagen omtvistede brug finder sted »for varer« i direktivets artikel 5, stk. 1, litra a)'s forstand, eftersom brugen består i, at tegnet, der er identisk med varemærket, anbringes på varer, samt i, at varer udbydes til salg, markedsføres eller oplagres med dette formål i betydningen i direktivets artikel 5, stk. 3, litra a) og b).
Once it has been found that, in the present case, the use of the sign in question by the third party is liable to affect the guarantee of origin of the goods and that the trade mark proprietor must be able to prevent this, it is immaterial that in the context of that use the sign is perceived as a badge of support for or loyalty or affiliation to the proprietor of the mark.
Varemærkeretten er herved afgørende inden for rammerne af den ordning med loyal konkurrence, som skal gennemføres og opretholdes efter traktaten. Under en sådan ordning må virksomhederne sættes i stand til på grundlag af kvaliteten af deres produkter eller tjenesteydelser at opbygge en fast kundekreds, hvilket kun er muligt, såfremt der findes særlige kendetegn, ved hjælp af hvilke de kan identificeres.
Having regard to the presentation of the word 'Arsenal' on the goods at issue in the main proceedings and the other secondary markings on them (see paragraph 39 above), the use of that sign is such as to create the impression that there is a material link in the course of trade between the goods concerned and the trade mark proprietor.
I denne forbindelse er det varemærkets afgørende funktion at garantere den identiske oprindelse af varen eller tjenesteydelsen, der er ■ omfattet af varemærket, over for forbrugeren eller den endelige bruger, som dermed sættes i stand til uden risiko for forveksling at adskille varen eller tjenesteydelsen fra varer eller tjenesteydelser med en anden oprindelse.
'In a situation which is not covered by Article 6(1) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, where a third party uses in the course of trade a ngn which is identical to a validly registered trade mark on goods which are identical to those for which it is registered, the trade mark proprietor of the mark is entitled, in circumstances such as those in the present case, to rely on Article 5(1) (a) ofthat directive to prevent that use.
For at varemærket kan udøve sin funktion som en væsentlig bestanddel af den ordning med loyal konkurrence, som skal gennemføres og opretholdes efter traktaten, skal det således udgøre en garanti for, at alle varer eller tjenesteydelser, der er forsynet med det, er blevet fremstillet under kontrol af én bestemt virksomhed, der er ansvarlig for deres kvalitet.
It is immaterial that, in the context ofthat use, the sign is perceived as a badge of support for or loyalty or affiliation to the trade mark proprietor.'
Der skal her for det første mindes om, at direktivets artikel 5, stk. 1, indebærer en fuldstændig og endelig harmonisering af den eneret, der tilkommer indehavere af varemærker i Fællesskabet.
Advocate General D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 13 June 2002.
Fællesskabslovgiver har anerkendt dette som varemærkets væsentligste funktion ved i direktivets artikel 2 at bestemme, at tegn, der kan gengives grafisk, alene kan udgøre et varemærke, såfremt de er egnede til at adskille en virksomheds varer eller tjenesteydelser fra andre virksomheders.
'(1) Article 5(l)(a) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a registered trade mark is entitled, on the basis of that provision, to prevent third parties from using, in relation to the same goods or services, identical signs which are capable of giving a misleading indication as to their origin, provenance, quality or reputation.
Det følger af det anførte, at eneretten i henhold til direktivets artikel 5, stk. 1, litra a), er blevet tildelt for at sætte varemærkeindehaveren i stand til at beskytte sine særlige interesser som indehaver af varemærket, dvs. at sikre, at varemærket kan opfylde sine egentlige funktioner.
When use of a trade mark by a third party is use "as a trade mark" is a question of fact which falls to the national court to determine in the light of the information available to it for the purpose of deciding the case.
Udøvelsen af denne ret bør derfor være begrænset til de tilfælde, hvor tredjemands brug af tegnet gør indgreb eller kan gøre indgreb i varemærkets funktioner og navnlig i dets væsentligste funktion, som er at garantere varens oprindelse over for forbrugerne.
None the less, in cases of identity of signs and of goods or services, there is a presumption iuris tantum that the use by a third party of the trade mark is use thereof as such.
Den eneret, som det registrerede varemærke giver indehaveren af mærket i medfør af direktivets artikel 5, stk. 1, litra a), kan nemlig kun begrundes inden for grænserne for denne bestemmelses anvendelsesområde.
(3) The use which the proprietor is entitled to prevent third parties from making is use for the purposes of commercial exploitation, which includes use of the distinctive signs which the undertakings which own football clubs have registered as trade marks for the purpose of marketing articles of clothing and other articles connected with the team.
Under disse omstændigheder kan brugen af et tegn, der er identisk med det i hovedsagen omhandlede varemærke, skabe fare for den oprindelsesgaranti, der er mærkets afgørende funktion, således som det fremgår af Domstolens praksis, der er nævnt i præmis 48 ovenfor.
In that regard, the reasons on which the consumer bases his choice of the goods and services are irrelevant.
Der er følgelig tale om en brug, som indehaveren af varemærket kan modsætte sig i medfør af direktivets artikel 5, stk. 1.
The decisive factor is that the persons for whom they are intended acquires or uses them because they incorporate the distinctive sign.'
Eftersom det er fastslået, at tredjemands brug af det pågældende mærke under omstændighederne i hovedsagen kan berøre garantien for varens oprindelse, og at varemærkets indehaver bør kunne modsætte sig denne brug, kan denne konklusion ikke anfægtes med henvisning til den omstændighed, at varemærket i forbindelse med denne brug opfattes som et udtryk for opbakning af, loyalitet over for eller tilslutning til varemærkets indehaver.
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations -- Fisheries — Conservation management of fishery resources — Control measures for fishing activities) (Fifth Chamber) failing provisionally to close certain fisheries when the quota was exhausted,
»I en situation, der ikke er omfattet af artikel 6, stk. 1, i Rådets første direktiv 891104/EØF af 21. december 1988 om indbyrdes tilnærmelse af medlemsstatemes lovgivning om varemærker, og hvorunder en tredjemand gør erhvervsmæssig brug af et tegn, der er identisk med et gyldigt registreret varemærke, for varer af samme art som dem, for hvilke varemærket er registreret, kan varemærkets indehaver i et tilfælde som det, der foretigger i hovedsagen, modsætte sig denne brug i medfør af direktivets artikel 5, stk. 1, titra a).
— failing to put in place appropriate detailed rules for the utilisation of the quotas allocated to it, failing to carry out inspections and other controls as required by the relevant Community regulations, failing to take administrative or penal action against the masters of ships infringing the regulations or any other person responsible for those infringements,
Generaladvokat D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer fremsatte forslap til afgørelse i retsmødet f Domstolens plenum) den 13. juni 2002.
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to comply with its obligations under the applicable Community regulations.
I tilfælde af identiske tegn og identiske varer eller tjenesteydelser er der imidlertid en lovbestemt formodning for, at tredjemand bruger mærket som varemærke.
the failure to take administrative or penal action, in breach of Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2057/82, in its successive versions, in the period up to 1 August 1987 and Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2241/87 for the following period.
Den brug, som indehaveren af varemærket kan forbyde tredjemand, er brug, der gøres med den hensigt at udnytte varemærket erhvervsmæssigt, hvorunder henhører benyttelse af de karakteristiske tegn, som de virksomheder, der ejer fodboldholdene, har registreret som varemærker med henblik på at markedsføre tøj og andre varer, der er forbundet med sportsholdet.
The scale of the figures and the reoccurrence of the situation which they describe indicate that the instances of overfishing could only have resulted, first, from the absence of appropriate detailed rules for the utilisation of fishing quotas and, secondly, from failure by the Member State concerned to comply with its monitoring obligations.
I den forbindelse er grunden til, at forbrugeren træffer sit valg, irrelevant.
The Commission's application contains tables listing the stocks which gave rise to 27 cases of overfishing or fishing in zones for which the United Kingdom had no quota.
Det afgørende er, at modtageren erhverver eller forbruger varen, fordi den er påført det karakteristiske tegn.«
Each table lists the stocks at issue, the quota allocated to that Member State — or absence of a quota — and the amount of overfishing for each of the years in question.
Sag C-454/99 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Det Forenede Kongerige Storbritannien og Nordirland Fiskeripolitik
For the period from 1985 to 1988 and for the year 1990, the Commission has set out the following five complaints against the United Kingdom:
»Traktatbrud —fisken — bevarelse ogforvaltning af ressourcerne — kontrolforanstaltninger for fiskeriet* (Femte Afdeling)
The practical difficulties put forward by the United Kingdom Government, such as landings in Spain and fluctuations in the amounts landed in other Member States or in third countries, cannot be taken into account.
Kongerige Storbritannien og Nordirland for hvert af årene 1985-1988 og for 1990 har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til de gældende fællesskabsretlige bestemmelser, da det har forsømt
— the absence of specific detailed rules for the utilisation of quotas, in breach of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 170/83;
- at fastsætte særlige regler for udnyttelsen af de kvoter, det har fået tildelt artikel 10, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 2057/82, dels med hensyn til den efterfølgende periode, hvorved det har tilsidesat artikel 11, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 2241/87
In those circumstances, the information which the Commission put forward in its application is sufficient to establish that, for the year 1988, the United Kingdom failed to ensure that all landings of mackerel were duly recorded by the national authorities.
- at gennemføre inspektioner og de øvrige kontrolforanstaltninger, som er foreskrevet i de pågældende fællesskabsbestemmelser
the absence of control measures, in breach of Article 1(1) of Regulation No 2057/82 for the period up to 1 August 1987 and Article 1(1) of Regulation No 2241/87 for the following period;
- midlertidigt at indstille visse fiskeriaktiviteter, når kvoterne var opbrugt forsømmelse (kun i 1988) af at træffe tilstrækkelige foranstaltninger for at undgå fejlagtige erklæringer om landinger af makrel, hvorved det har tilsidesat artikel 9 i forordning nr. 2241/87, og
— the belated prohibition of fishing, in breach of Article 10(2) of Regulation No 2057/82 for the period up to 1 August 1987 and Article 11(2) of Regulation No 2241/87 for the following period;
- at træffe tilstrækkelige foranstaltninger (kun i 1988) for at undgå fejlagtige indberetninger vedrørende landinger af makrel, og
— the absence (in 1988 only) of sufficient measures to prevent the misreporting of landings of mackerel, in breach of Article 9 of Regulation No 2241/87; and
- forsømmelse af at pålægge strafferetlige eller administrative sanktioner, hvorved det har tilsidesat dels — med hensyn til perioden indtil den 1. august 1987 — artikel 1, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 2057/82 i de versioner heraf, som har været successivt gældende, dels — med hensyn til den efterfølgende periode — artikel 1, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 2241/87.
It is unclear whether the United Kingdom notwithstanding the information provided by it in the annex to its rejoinder, was able to inform the Commission of any penal or administrative action which might have been undertaken, although a significant number of cases of illegal fishing were observed during the years in question.
at indlede administrativ eller strafferetlig påtale over for de skippere, som har overtrådt forordningerne eller over for enhver anden person, der er ansvarlig for overtrædelserne.
The argument put forward by the United Kingdom concerning the need for the Commission to provide specific evidence cannot be upheld.
I stævningen har Kommissionen i form af tabeller angivet en række bestande, hvor der blev konstateret 27 tilfælde af overfiskeri eller fiskeri inden for områder, hvor Det Forenede Kongerige ikke havde nogen kvote. Hver af tabellerne opregner de omhandlede bestande, den kvote, som var tildelt Det Forenede Kongerige — eller manglen på kvote - og mængden af overfiskeriet for hvert af de pågældende år.
Declares that, in respect of each of the years 1985 to 1988 and 1990, by failing to put in place specific detailed rules for the utilisation of the quotas allocated to it and to carry out the inspections and other controls required by the relevant Community legislation,
- forsømmelse af at fastsætte kontrolforanstaltninger dels med hensyn til perioden indtil den 1. august 1987, hvorved det har tilsidesat artikel 1, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 2057/82, dels med hensyn til den efterfølgende periode, hvorved det har tilsidesat artikel 1, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 2241/87
failing provisionally to close certain fisheries when the quotas had been exhausted, failing (in 1988 only) to take sufficient measures to prevent the misreporting of landings of mackerel, and fading to take administrative or penal action against the masters of ships infringing the regulations or any other person responsible f or those infringements, the United ¡ungdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983 establishing a Community system for the conservation and management of fishery resources and Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2057/82 of 29 June 1982 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities by vessels of the Member States (up tol August 1987) and Article 1(1) of Councü Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87of23 July 1987 establishing certain control measures f or fishing activities (thereafter), as well as Article 10(2) of Regulation No 2057/82 (up to 1 August 1987) and Article 11(2) of Regulation No 2241/87 (thereafter); Article 9(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2241/87; and Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2057/82, as amended by Council Regulations (EEC) No 3723/85 of 20 December 1985 and No 4027/86 of 18 December 1986 (up to 1 August 1987) and Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2241/87 (thereafter);
Det Forenede Kongeriges argument om, at det påhvilede Kommissionen at føre særskilt bevis for sine påstande, kan ikke tages til følge.
Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.'
forsinket udstedelse af forbud mod fiskeri dels med hensyn til perioden indtil den 1. august 1987, hvorved det har tilsidesat
Advocate General C. Stix-Hackl delivered her Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 5 March 2002.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
- failing in 1988 to take sufficient measures to prevent the misreporting of landings of mackerel, and
2) Det Forenede Kongerige Storbritannien og Nordirland betaler sagens omkostninger.*
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 12 April 2000, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 226 EC for a declaration that, in respect of each of the years 1991 to 1996, by:
Generaladvokat C Stix-Hackl fremsatte forslap til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 5. marts 2002.
Each table lists, for every year in question, the zones and species involved in overfishing together with the quotas allocated to the United Kingdom and their amounts.
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
failing provisionally to close certain fisheries when quotas had been exhausted,
Sag C-140/00 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Det Forenede Kongerige Storbritannien og Nordirland Fiskeripolitik
with effect from 1 January 1993, Article 9(2) of Regulation No 3760/92; rules for the utilisation of fishing quotas and, secondly, from failure by the Member State concerned to comply with its monitoring obligations.
»Traktatbrud —fiskeri — bevarelse ogforvaltning af ressourcerne—kontrolforanstaltninger over f or fiskeriet* (Femte Afdeling)
the absence of inspection and control measures, in breach of Article 1(1) of Regulation No 2241/87 and, with effect from 1 January 1994, Article 2 of Regulation No 2847/93;
Generaladvokat C Stix-Hackl fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 21. marts 2002.
the belated closure of fisheries, in breach of Article 11(2) of Regulation No 2241/87 and, with effect from 1 January 1994, Article 21 of Regulation No 2847/93; and the failure to take administrative or penal action, in breach of Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2241/87 and, with effect from 1 January 1994, Article 31 of Regulation No 2847/93.
Disse spørgsmål blev rejst under en sag, der føres af Ilumitrónica — Iluminação e Electrónicao L(herefter »Ilumitrónica«) mod Chefe da Divisão de Procedimentos Aduaneiros e Fiscais/Direcção das Alfândegas de Lisboa vedrørende efteropkrævning af importafgifter i 1992 for et parti fjernsyn med oprindelse i Tyrkiet.
Declares that, in respect of each of the years 1991 to 1996, by: failing to put in place appropriate detailed rules for the utilisation of the quotas allocated to it and to carry out the inspections and other controls required by the relevant Community regulations, failing provisionally to close certain fisheries when quotas were exhausted, failing to take administrative or penal action against the masters of vesseb infringing those regulations or against any other person responsible for such infringement, the Untied Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983 establishing a Community system for the conservation and management of fishery resources and, with effect from 1 January 1993, Article 9(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture, as well as Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities and, with effect from 1 January 1994, Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October
Ved skrivelse af 20. juli 1992 angav Ilumitrónica importen af et parti farvefjernsyn med oprindelse i Tyrkiet til de portugisiske toldmyndigheder. Varerne var ledsaget af en ATR.l-attest, og de var derfor omfattet af præferenceordningen i henhold til associeringsaftalen og tillægsprotokollen hertil, som ratificeret af Den Portugisiske Republik ved dekret nr. 3/92 af 21. januar 1992.
1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy, Article 11(2) of Regulation No 2241/87 and, with effect from 1 January 1994, Article 21 of Regulation No 2847/93, and Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2241/87 and, with effect from 1 January 1994, Article 31 of Regulation No 2847/93;
Selv om det i princippet tilkommer den nationale ret at fastslå, om de kompetente myndigheder har begået en fejl, bemærkes, at Domstolen i denne sag er i besiddelse af alle de elementer, der er nødvendige for afgørelsen heraf.
Advocate General C. Stix-Hackl delivered her Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 21 March 2002.
De præjudicielle spørgsmål
She proposed that the Court should:
Da de myndigheder, der udstedte ATR.1-attesten, i overensstemmelse med fast praksis ikke gjorde indsigelse mod oplysningerne i den i hovedsagen omhandlede importangivelse, har de baseret deres attestation vedrørende varernes oprindelse på en urigtig fortolkning af de gældende toldbestemmelser, hvorved de således selv begik en fejl i forbindelse med anvendelsen af de omhandlede bestemmelser.
'(1) Declare that, in respect of each of the years 1991 to 1996, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under (i) Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 or Article 9(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 (as from 1 January 1993) and Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 or Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 (from 1 January 1994); (ii) Article 11(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 or Article 21 of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93; and (iii) Article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 or Article 31 of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93, by failing to put in place appropriate detailed rules for the utilisation of quotas allocated to it, not carrying out inspections and other controls as required by the relevant Community regulations, failing provisionally to close fisheries when the quota was exhausted, taking administrative or penal action against the masters of the ships infringing the regulations or against such other persons as were responsible for such infringement in too few cases;
Der er faktisk flere omstændigheder, der peger i retning af, at den fejl, som de tyrkiske
(2) Order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.'