Judgment of the Court of 14 May 2002.

Michael Hölterhoff v Ulrich Freiesleben.

Reference for a preliminary ruling: Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf - Germany.

Approximation of laws - Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 5(1) - Scope of the proprietor's exclusive right to the trade mark - Third party - Use of the trade mark for descriptive purposes.

Case C-2/00.


Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex
Judgment (OJ)
28/06/2002 Hölterhoff
Judgment
ECLI:EU:C:2002:287
14/05/2002 Hölterhoff
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Judgment (Summary)
ECLI:EU:C:2002:287
14/05/2002 Hölterhoff
Opinion (OJ)
15/02/2002 Hölterhoff
Opinion
ECLI:EU:C:2001:468
20/09/2001 Hölterhoff
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

2002 I-04187

Subject-matter

Preliminary ruling ─ Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf ─ Interpretation of the second sentence of Article 5(1) and Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks ─ Use of mark that could be prohibited by its proprietor ─ Use to indicate the specific characteristics of the goods (but not the origin of the goods in a particular undertaking)

Systematic classification scheme

Information not available


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

  • Directive 89/104 -A05P1 : paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 11 - 17

Operative part

  • Interprets : Directive 89/104 -A05P1

Opinion

  • Directive 84/450 : point 65
  • Directive 84/450 -A02PT1 : point 67
  • Directive 84/450 -A02PT2BIS : point 67
  • Directive 84/450 -A03BISP1 : points 69, 72
  • Directive 84/450 -A07P2 : point 70
  • Directive 97/55 -C13 : point 75
  • Directive 97/55 -C15 : point 75
  • Regulation 40/94 -A09P2LD : point 76
  • Directive 89/104 -A02 : point 35
  • Directive 89/104 -A04 : point 35
  • Directive 89/104 -A05P1 : points 2, 3, 8, 32 - 49, 54, 62, 63, 73
  • Directive 89/104 -A05P1LA : points 41, 42
  • Directive 89/104 -A05P1LB : points 40, 41
  • Directive 89/104 -A05P2 : points 4, 8, 37, 44
  • Directive 89/104 -A05P3 : points 5, 8, 38
  • Directive 89/104 -A05P5 : points 6, 37
  • Directive 89/104 -A06 : point 49
  • Directive 89/104 -A06P1 : points 2, 7, 8, 47 - 61, 72, 73
  • Directive 89/104 -A07 : point 49
  • Directive 89/104 -A10 : point 34
  • Directive 89/104 -A11 : point 34
  • Directive 89/104 -A12 : point 34
  • Directive 89/104 -A12P2LA : point 45
  • Directive 89/104 -C7 : point 35
  • Directive 89/104 -C10 : point 35
  • Regulation 40/94 -A09P1 : point 8
  • Regulation 40/94 -A09P2 : point 8
  • Regulation 40/94 -A12 : point 8
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -102/77 : point 35
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -427/93 : point 35
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -349/95 : point 35
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -63/97 : point 37
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -108/97 : point 50
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -379/97 : point 35
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -206/01 : point 46


Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

  • 05/01/2000

Date of the Opinion

  • 20/09/2001

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

14/05/2002


References

Publication in the Official Journal

Application: OJ C 63 from 04.03.2000, p.20

Judgment: OJ C 169 from 13.07.2002, p.6

Name of the parties

Hölterhoff

Notes on Academic Writings

  1. Buhrow, Astrid: Erfordernis des markenmäßigen Gebrauchs bestätigt, European Law Reporter 2002 p.182-183
  2. Gielen, Ch.: Intellectuele eigendom & Reclamerecht 2002 p.195-197
  3. Speyart, H.M.H.: Is verwijzend gebruik van een merk inbrukmakend?, Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht 2002 p.261-265
  4. Patruno, Luciano: Pietre preziose, rasoi elettrici e dolciumi: i dubbi risolti del consumatore trasformano il marchio in certezza, Diritto pubblico comparato ed europeo 2002 p.1753-1767
  5. García Vidal, Angel: El uso de la marca ajena con una finalidad diferente a la de distinguir productos o servicios [Comentario a las sentencias del Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades Europeas de 14 de mayo de 2002 (Michael Hölterhoff y Ulrich Freiesleben); de 12 de noviembre de 2002 (Arsenal Football Club plc y Matthew Reed) y de 21 de noviembre de 2002 (Robelco NV y Robeco Groep NV)], Actas de derecho industrial y derecho de autor 2002 p.337-361
  6. Eisenführ, Günther: Marken als Freiwild für Wareneigenschaften, Festschrift für Winfried Tilmann 2003 p.313-319
  7. De Haan, Wiebe ; Huizer, Wouter ; Span, Robert: Referend merkbegruik: is het Tanderil-arrest achterhaald na Hölterhoff/Freiesleben?, Ars aequi 2003 p.814-822
  8. Bonet, Georges: Revue trimestrielle de droit européen 2004 p.97-134
  9. Kur, Annette: Merchandising im Spielzeug-Markt - wie weit reicht die "Eigentums-Logik"?, Perspektiven des geistigen Eigentums und Wettbewerbsrechts : Festschrift für Gerhard Schricker 2005 p. 835-844



Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf - Germany

Subject-matter

  • Approximation of laws
  • Intellectual, industrial and commercial property

Provisions of national law referred to

Markengesetz (MarkenG), Paragraph 14 Abs. 2 No. 1 und 2

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

  • Reference for a preliminary ruling

Formation of the Court

Cour plénière (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Gulmann

Advocate General

Jacobs

Language(s) of the Case

  • German

Language(s) of the Opinion

  • English