Reports of Cases

2011 I-08625

Subject-matter

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) and (2) of 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), Article 9(1)(a) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) and Articles 12(1), 13(1) and 14(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1) – Meaning of ‘use’ of a mark – Registration by a trader with a service provider which operates an Internet search engine of a sign identical to a trade mark in order to have displayed automatically on the screen, following the entry of that sign as a search term, the URL of that trader’s website offering goods and services identical to those covered by the trade mark (‘AdWords’) – Flower delivery service

Systematic classification scheme

Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

• TFEU, Article 252 -L2 : paragraphs 24, 25
• Directive 89/104 : paragraphs 3, 4
• Directive 89/104 -A05 : paragraphs 1, 7, 30 - 32
• Directive 89/104 -A05P1 : paragraph 8
• Directive 89/104 -A05P1LA : paragraphs 20, 33 - 66
• Directive 89/104 -A05P1LB : paragraph 36
• Directive 89/104 -A05P2 : paragraphs 20, 35, 68 - 95
• Directive 89/104 -A05P3 : paragraph 8
• Directive 89/104 -C10 : paragraphs 5, 36, 39
• Directive 89/104 -C7 : paragraph 6
• Court of Justice - Rules of Procedure (1991) -A61 : paragraphs 22, 23
• Regulation 40/94 : paragraphs 3, 4
• Regulation 40/94 -A09 : paragraphs 1, 30 - 32
• Regulation 40/94 -A09P1LA : paragraphs 8, 20, 33 - 66
• Regulation 40/94 -A09P1LB : paragraphs 8, 36
• Regulation 40/94 -A09P1LC : paragraphs 8, 20, 35, 68 - 95
• Regulation 40/94 -A09P2 : paragraph 8
• Regulation 40/94 -C7 : paragraphs 36, 39
• Directive 2008/95 : paragraphs 3, 4
• Regulation 207/2009 : paragraphs 3, 4
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -292/00 : paragraph 68
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -206/01 : paragraphs 37, 39
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -408/01 : paragraphs 68, 71
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -17/06 : paragraph 38
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -284/06 : paragraph 22
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -533/06 : paragraph 38
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -487/07 : paragraphs 34, 38, 72 - 74, 89
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -59/08 : paragraph 57
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -236/08 : paragraphs 30, 34, 38, 42, 44 - 46, 54, 56, 58, 59, 68, 84, 90
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -278/08 : paragraphs 30, 31, 34, 54
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -558/08 : paragraphs 34, 44, 45
• Court of Justice - Order C -62/08 : paragraph 38
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -323/09 : paragraphs 47, 76, 86
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -221/09 : paragraphs 22, 24
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -229/09 : paragraph 24
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -324/09 : paragraph 63
• Court of Justice - Order C -91/09 : paragraph 31

Operative part

• Interprets : Directive 89/104 -A05P1LA
• Interprets : Directive 89/104 -A05P2
• Interprets : Regulation 40/94 -A09P1LA
• Interprets : Regulation 40/94 -A09P1LC

Opinion

• Directive 89/104 : point 37
  
• Directive 89/104 -A02 : point 77
  
• Directive 89/104 -A04P3 : point 13
  
• Directive 89/104 -A04P4 : points 13, 14
  
• Directive 89/104 -A04P4LA : point 65
  
• Directive 89/104 -A05 : points 13, 14, 33, 34
  
• Directive 89/104 -A05P1 : points 34, 36, 39
  
• Directive 89/104 -A05P1LA : points 33 - 49, 56 - 64
  
• Directive 89/104 -A05P1LB : points 35, 59, 63, 64
  
• Directive 89/104 -A05P2 : points 33 - 107
  
• Directive 89/104 -A05P3LD : point 42
  
• Directive 89/104 -A05P5 : point 34
  
• Directive 89/104 -A06 : point 42
  
• Directive 89/104 -A06P1 : point 14
  
• Directive 89/104 -A07 : point 42
  
• Directive 89/104 -C1 : point 10
  
• Directive 89/104 -C10 : points 12, 14, 61
  
• Directive 89/104 -C9 : point 11
  
• Regulation 40/94 -A08P5 : point 14
  
• Regulation 40/94 -A09 : points 14, 15
  
• Regulation 40/94 -A09P1LA : points 33 - 49, 56 - 64
  
• Regulation 40/94 -A09P1LC : points 33 - 107
  
• Regulation 40/94 -A12P1 : point 14
  
• Regulation 40/94 -C7 : point 14
  
• Directive 2006/114 : point 42
  
• Directive 2008/95 : point 37
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -375/97 : points 33, 71
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -292/00 : points 37, 57, 63
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -408/01 : point 50
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -206/01 : points 45, 80
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -408/01 : points 36, 37
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -17/06 : point 35
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -252/07 : point 50
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -487/07 : points 64, 97
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -252/07 : points 65, 70, 79
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -301/07 : point 33
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -487/07 : points 58, 63, 64, 79, 92 - 95
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -59/08 : point 50
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -236/08 : point 74
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -236/08 : points 39, 41, 42 - 44, 58, 68, 74 - 76, 87, 96, 101, 103
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -278/08 : point 39
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -558/08 : point 39
  
• Court of Justice - Order C -91/09 : point 39
  

Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

• 12/08/2009

Date of the Opinion

• 24/03/2011

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

22/09/2011

References

Publication in the Official Journal

Application: OJ C 282 from 21.11.2009, p.19

Judgment: OJ C 331 from 12.11.2011, p.2

Name of the parties

Interflora and Interflora British Unit

Notes on Academic Writings

1. Abrar, Sascha: EuGH: Generalanwalt sieht bekannte Marken durch Google AdWords nicht per se verletzt, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 2011 p.166 (DE)
2. Lettner, Harald: Keyword advertising - eine markenrechtliche Analyse, European Law Reporter 2011 p.265-266 (DE)
3. Ohly, Ansgar: Erstmalige Präzisierung des Schutzes der Investitionsfunktion der Marke, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 2011 p.1131-1132 (DE)
4. Wery, Étienne ; Breteau, Lise: Droit des marques : la justice européenne met à mort la contrefaçon par reproduction « à la française », Droit de l'immatériel : informatique, médias, communication 2011 nº 76 p.6-15 (FR)
5. Costes, Lionel: CJUE et AdWords : après l'arrêt Google, l'arrêt Interflora..., Droit de l'immatériel : informatique, médias, communication 2011 nº 76 p.41-42 (FR)
6. Humblot, Benoît: Protection de la marque en cas de double identité : regard sur la jurisprudence créative de la CJUE, Droit de l'immatériel : informatique, médias, communication 2011 nº 77 p.10-18 (FR)
7. Tardieu-Guigues, Élisabeth: Concurrence, concurrence..., Droit de l'immatériel : informatique, médias, communication 2011 nº 77 p.60-66 (FR)
8. Fehringer, Sabine ; Cizek, Alexander: Werbung im Internet mit Schlüsselwörtern ("Keyword advertising"); Auswahl eines Schlüsselworts, das der bekannten Marke eines Mitbewerbers entspricht, Österreichische Blätter für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 2011 p.341-342 (DE)
9. Adobati, Enrica: La Corte di giustizia si pronuncia sui limiti di utilizzo via internet, per scopi pubblicitari, di un marchio registrato, Diritto comunitario e degli scambi internazionali 2011 p.716-720 (IT)
10. Van der Kooij, Paul: Het Interflora-arrest en de geldige reden, Berichten industriële eigendom 2011 p.360-364 (NL)
11. Steinhauser, P.J.M.: De functies van het merk, inzonderheid de investeringsfunctie, Berichten industriële eigendom 2011 p.398-400 (NL)
12. Gielen, Ch.: Intellectuele eigendom & Reclamerecht 2011 p.429-431 (NL)
13. Bourgeois, Matthieu: Référencement payant et utilisation d'une marque : les précisions apportées par l'arrêt Interflora, La Semaine Juridique - entreprise et affaires 2012 nº 3 p.47-49 (FR)
14. Cornthwaite, Jonathan: Say it with flowers: The Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Interflora v Marks & Spencer, European Intellectual Property Review 2012 p.127-132 (EN)
15. Stefani, Fabia: Profili di liceità dell'uso del marchio altrui come parola chiave nella pubblicità su Internet: note a margine della sentenza Interflora, Rivista di diritto industriale 2012 II p.100-146 (IT)
16. Csáky, Claudia: EuGH-Urteil zu AdWords - Rechtliche Herausforderungen für Markeninhaber, Ecolex 2012 p.238-239 (DE)
17. Hoogenraad, E.H. ; Haije, D.: Interflora: van doodsteek naar flowerpower voor vergelijkende reclame, Intellectuele eigendom & Reclamerecht 2012 p.5-9 (NL)
18. Psaroudakis, Giorgos: Epitheorisis tou Emporikou Dikaiou 2012 p.214-222 (EL)
19. Gielen, Ch.: Interflora/Marks & Spencer, Ars aequi 2012 p.40-43 (NL)
20. Larrieu, Jacques: Droit du numérique. Technique de référencement et responsabilité de l'annonceur, Recueil Le Dalloz 2012 p.2346-2347 (FR)
21. Spoor, J.H.: Nederlandse jurisprudentie ; Uitspraken in burgerlijke en strafzaken 2012 nº 526 (NL)
22. Bonet, Georges: Droit des marques et autres signes distinctifs - Publicité sur internet à partir de mots-clés (keyword advertising), Propriétés intellectuelles 2012 nº 42 p.63-68 (FR)
23. X: Revue de droit commercial belge 2012 p.573-574 (NL)
24. Meale, Darren: Interflora: the last word on keyword advertising?, Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 2012 p.11-14 (EN)
25. Incalza, Thomas: Keyword Advertising, Consumer Protection, Fair Trade and Intellectual Property, Landmark cases of EU consumer law: in honour of Jules Stuyck (Ed. Intersentia - Cambridge) 2013 p.407-426 (EN)
26. Fougner, Kaia Bugge: On keyword advertising on an internet search engine, LANDMARK IP DECISIONS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE 2008-2013 (Ed. Larcier - Brussels) 2014 p.96-100 (EN)
27. Jehoram, Cohen: Jurisprudentie Intellectuele Eigendom 1953-2014 (Ed. 2015 Ars Aequi Libri, Nijmegen) 2015 p.178-182 (NL)
28. Gielen, Ch.: Interflora/Marks & Spencer, Ars aequi 2019 p.520-523 (NL)

Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division - United Kingdom

Subject-matter

• Freedom to provide services
  
• Approximation of laws
  
• Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
  
• Consumer protection
  

Provisions of national law referred to

Trade Marks Act 1994, sections 10(1) and (3) The Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002, regulations 17-19

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

• Reference for a preliminary ruling
  

Formation of the Court

première chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Ilešič

Advocate General

Jääskinen

Language(s) of the Case

• English
  

Language(s) of the Opinion

• English