Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 April 2008.

adidas AG andt adidas Benelux BV v Marca Mode CV and Others.

Reference for a preliminary ruling: Hoge Raad der Nederlanden - Netherlands.

Trade marks - Articles 5(1)(b), 5(2) and 6(1)(b) of Directive 89/104/EEC - Requirement of availability - Three-stripe figurative marks - Two-stripe motifs used by competitors as decoration - Complaint alleging infringement and dilution of the mark.

Case C-102/07.


Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex
Judgment (OJ)
24/05/2008 Adidas and adidas Benelux
View pdf documents
Judgment (Summary)
ECLI:EU:C:2008:217
10/04/2008 Adidas and adidas Benelux
Judgment
ECLI:EU:C:2008:217
10/04/2008 Adidas and adidas Benelux
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Opinion
ECLI:EU:C:2008:14
16/01/2008 Adidas and adidas Benelux
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Application (OJ)
14/04/2007 Adidas and adidas Benelux
View pdf documents
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

2008 I-02439

Subject-matter

Preliminary ruling – Hoge Raad der Nederlanden – Interpretation of Article 3(1)(b) and (c) 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) – Non-registration or invalidity – Lack of distinctive character – Acquisition through usage – General interest in not restricting unduly the availability of signs perceived by the relevant public as signs serving to embellish a product and not to distinguish it

Systematic classification scheme

1.
B European Community (EEC/EC)
  B-11 Approximation of laws
    B-11.07 Harmonisation of trade mark law
      B-11.07.03 Effects of a mark
B European Community (EEC/EC)
  B-11 Approximation of laws
    B-11.07 Harmonisation of trade mark law
      B-11.07.03 Effects of a mark
B European Community (EEC/EC)
  B-11 Approximation of laws
    B-11.07 Harmonisation of trade mark law
      B-11.07.03 Effects of a mark
B European Community (EEC/EC)
  B-11 Approximation of laws
    B-11.07 Harmonisation of trade mark law
      B-11.07.03 Effects of a mark


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

  • Directive 89/104 : paragraph 1
  • Directive 89/104 -A03 : paragraphs 23, 25, 26
  • Directive 89/104 -A03P1 : paragraph 3
  • Directive 89/104 -A03P1LB : paragraphs 19, 21
  • Directive 89/104 -A03P1LC : paragraphs 19, 21
  • Directive 89/104 -A03P3 : paragraph 4
  • Directive 89/104 -A05 : paragraphs 26, 27
  • Directive 89/104 -A05P1 : paragraphs 5, 38
  • Directive 89/104 -A05P1LB : paragraphs 30 - 34
  • Directive 89/104 -A05P2 : paragraphs 5, 37, 38, 40, 41
  • Directive 89/104 -A06 : paragraph 45
  • Directive 89/104 -A06P1 : paragraph 6
  • Directive 89/104 -A06P1LB : paragraphs 26, 44, 46, 47, 50
  • Directive 89/104 -A12 : paragraphs 25, 26
  • Directive 89/104 -A12P2 : paragraph 7
  • Directive 89/104 -A12P2LA : paragraph 24
  • Directive 89/104 -C10 : paragraphs 29, 36
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -251/95 : paragraph 29
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -108/97 : paragraph 23
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -342/97 : paragraph 28
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -425/98 : paragraphs 29, 40
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -292/00 : paragraphs 37, 38
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -53/01 : paragraph 23
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/01 : paragraph 23
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -408/01 : paragraphs 37, 40 - 42
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -228/03 : paragraph 45
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -120/04 : paragraphs 28, 29
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -45/05 : paragraphs 24, 27
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -48/05 : paragraph 47
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -102/07 -N33 : paragraphs 22, 46

Operative part

  • Interprets : Directive 89/104

Opinion

  • Directive 89/104 : point 5
  • Directive 89/104 -A02 : point 6
  • Directive 89/104 -A03 : points 61, 66, 68, 73
  • Directive 89/104 -A03P1 : points 7, 49, 55, 71
  • Directive 89/104 -A03P1LB : points 24, 28, 30, 44, 50, 52 - 53, 57, 80
  • Directive 89/104 -A03P1LC : points 24, 28 - 30, 41, 43 - 44, 72 - 74, 80, 85
  • Directive 89/104 -A03P1LD : point 28
  • Directive 89/104 -A03P1LE : point 44
  • Directive 89/104 -A03P3 : points 8, 52, 56
  • Directive 89/104 -A05 : points 27, 46 - 48, 73, 75 - 76, 84
  • Directive 89/104 -A05P1 : point 9
  • Directive 89/104 -A05P2 : point 9
  • Directive 89/104 -A06 : points 27, 45, 47 - 48, 50, 66 - 69, 75, 79
  • Directive 89/104 -A06P1 : points 30, 47, 49 - 51, 71
  • Directive 89/104 -A06P1LA : points 49, 51
  • Directive 89/104 -A06P1LB : points 29, 51, 57, 61, 63, 65, 72, 74, 76 - 78, 81, 83 - 84
  • Directive 89/104 -A06P1LC : points 51, 73
  • Regulation 40/94 : point 5
  • Regulation 40/94 -A04 : point 5
  • Regulation 40/94 -A07 : points 5, 66
  • Regulation 40/94 -A07P1LB : point 53
  • Regulation 40/94 -A07P1LC : point 55
  • Regulation 40/94 -A07P1LD : point 55
  • Regulation 40/94 -A07P1LE : point 55
  • Regulation 40/94 -A09 : point 5
  • Regulation 40/94 -A12 : points 5, 66
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -10/89 -N13 : point 59
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -63/97 : point 59
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -63/97 -N24 : point 64
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -63/97 -N62 : point 59
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -63/97 -N62 : point 77
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -108/97 : points 32, 41, 44, 61
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -108/97 -N26 : point 43
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -108/97 -N27 : point 43
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -108/97 -N28 : point 61
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -108/97 -N28 : point 77
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -108/97 -N35 : point 42
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -223/98 : point 1
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -425/98 : point 1
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -383/99 -N37 : point 66
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -383/99 -N77 : point 66
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -299/99 -N80 : point 44
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -363/99 : point 33
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -383/99 : point 66
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/00 : point 32
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -456/01 -N48 : point 53
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -456/01 -N78 : point 53
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -53/01 : point 32
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/01 -N52 : point 44
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/01 -N57 : points 67, 79
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/01 -N58 : point 68
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/01 -N59 : point 68
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -218/01 -N40 : point 44
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -218/01 -N41 : point 44
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -408/01 : point 1
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -408/01 -N39 : point 82
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -456/01 : points 32, 44
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -100/02 -N16 : point 77
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -100/02 -N19 : point 63
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -100/02 -N26 : point 63
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -329/02 -N26 : point 44
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -329/02 -N27 : point 44
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -228/03 -N41 : point 64
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -228/03 -N44 : point 64
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -48/05 -N43 : point 62
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -17/06 -N29 : point 49


Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

  • 21/02/2007

Date of the Opinion

  • 16/01/2008

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

10/04/2008


References

Publication in the Official Journal

Application: OJ C 82 from 14.04.2007, p.26

Judgment: OJ C 128 from 24.05.2008, p.13

Name of the parties

Adidas and adidas Benelux

Notes on Academic Writings

  1. Idot, Laurence: De la disponibilité d'un signe, Europe 2008 Juin Comm. nº 203 p.29-30
  2. Gielen, Charles ; Verschuur, Anne-Marie: Adidas v Marca II: Undue Limitations of Trade Mark Owner's Rights by the European Court of Justice?, European Intellectual Property Review 2008 p.254-258
  3. Lerach, Mark: Zum Freihaltebedürfnis als Kriterium des Schutzumfangs einer Marke im Verletzungsverfahren, European Law Reporter 2008 p.216-220
  4. Casaburi, G.: Il Foro italiano 2008 IV Col.297-301
  5. Lübbig, Thomas ; Pitschas, Christian ; Le Bell, Miriam: EuGH: Urteil zur Reichweite des ausschließlichen Rechts eines Markeninhabers, Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht / Revue suisse de droit des affaires / Swiss Review of Business Law 2008 p.331-332
  6. Gielen, Ch.: Intellectuele eigendom & Reclamerecht 2008 p.211
  7. Grigoriadis, L.: Elliniki Epitheorisi Evropaïkou Dikaiou 2008 p.545-551
  8. Clayton-Chen, Jennifer: Freihaltebedürfnis und Kennzeichnungskraft von Marken im Rahmen der Verwechslungsgefahr, Markenrecht 2008 p.476-481
  9. Salom, Gaia: L'interesse generale alla libera disponibilità dei segni nella giurisprudenza comunitaria, Rivista di diritto industriale 2008 II p.536-543
  10. Gielen, Ch.: Nederlandse jurisprudentie ; Uitspraken in burgerlijke en strafzaken 2010 nº 436



Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden - Netherlands

Subject-matter

  • Approximation of laws
  • Intellectual, industrial and commercial property

Procedure and result

  • Reference for a preliminary ruling

Formation of the Court

première chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Ilešič

Advocate General

Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer

Language(s) of the Case

  • Dutch

Language(s) of the Opinion

  • Spanish