Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 March 2005.

The Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland Oy v LA-Laboratories Ltd Oy.

Reference for a preliminary ruling: Korkein oikeus - Finland.

Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 6(1)(c) - Limitations on the protection conferred by the trade mark - Use by a third party where it is necessary to indicate the intended purpose of a product or service.

Case C-228/03.


Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex
Judgment (OJ)
28/05/2005 Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland
View pdf documents
Judgment
ECLI:EU:C:2005:177
17/03/2005 Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Judgment (Summary)
ECLI:EU:C:2005:177
17/03/2005 Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland
Opinion
ECLI:EU:C:2004:786
09/12/2004 Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Application (OJ)
19/07/2003 Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland
View pdf documents
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

2005 I-02337

Subject-matter

Interpretation of Article 6(1)(c) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks ─ Obligation of the proprietor of a trade mark to tolerate its use where this is necessary to indicate the intended purpose of a product or service ─ Criteria for assessment of a spare part or accessory ─ Criteria for identification of other products which may fall within the scope of Article 6(1)(c)

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


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

  • Directive 89/104 -A05P1 : paragraphs 27 - 28
  • Directive 89/104 -A06P1LC : paragraphs 1, 27 - 53
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -102/77 : paragraph 26
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -10/89 : paragraph 25
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -63/97 : paragraphs 29, 33, 35, 41 - 43
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -299/99 : paragraph 26
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -517/99 : paragraph 25
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -206/01 : paragraphs 25, 26
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -100/02 : paragraphs 29, 41

Operative part

  • Interprets : Directive 89/104 -A06P1LC

Opinion

  • Directive 89/104 -A06P1LC : points 1, 27 - 41, 51 - 71, 80 - 91
  • Directive 84/450 : points 75 - 79
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -63/97 : points 58 - 70, 73, 74, 80, 81
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -425/98 : point 84
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -112/99 : point 84
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -100/02 : points 29, 55, 73


Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

  • 26/05/2003

Date of the Opinion

  • 09/12/2004

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

17/03/2005


References

Publication in the Official Journal

Application: OJ C 171 from 19.07.2003, p.18

Judgment: OJ C 132 from 28.05.2005, p.8

Name of the parties

Gillette Company and Gillette Group Finland

Notes on Academic Writings

  1. Visser, D.J.G.: Geschikt voor Sensor of Senseo, Bijblad bij de industriële eigendom 2005 p.131-132
  2. Weidert, Stefan: Entscheidungen zum Wirtschaftsrecht 2005 p.549-550
  3. Casaburi, G.: Il Foro italiano 2005 IV Col.309-314
  4. Mariatte, Flavien: Marque. Utilisation de la marque d'autrui aux fins d'indication de la destination du produit et limites du droit exclusif: une application de la jurisprudence Dior / BMW à la publicité sur les lames de rasoir, Europe 2005 Mai Comm. nº 178 p.26
  5. Speyart, Herman M.H.: Intellectuele eigendom & Reclamerecht 2005 p.234-236
  6. Naumann, Alice: Auf Gillette verweisen, ohne Gillette zu nennen?, European Law Reporter 2005 p.267-269
  7. Luby, Monique: Droit européen des affaires. Les politiques communes, Revue trimestrielle de droit commercial et de droit économique 2005 p.868-870
  8. Gamerith, Helmut: Verwenden einer fremden Marke zur Beschreibung der eigenen Leistung, Österreichische Blätter für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 2006 p.92-93
  9. Kosmopoulos, M.: Epitheorisis tou Emporikou Dikaiou 2006 p.758-762
  10. García Vidal, Angel: El uso de una marca ajena para indicar el destino de un producto o servicio propio (Comentario a la Sentencia del TJCE (Sala Tercera) de 17 de marzo de 2005, asunto C 228/03, The Gillette Company, Gillette Group Finland Oy y LA-Laboratoires Ltd Oy, Rec. 2005, pags. I-2337 y ss.), Jurisprudencia comunitaria sobre marcas 2007 nº 24 p.83-95
  11. Koppensteiner, Hans-Georg: Markenverletzung und Merkmalsangabe?, Ecolex 2007 p.873-874
  12. Korhonen, Petteri: Om lojalitet och varumärkesskyddets gränser. Kommentar till HD 2006:17 (NIR 2007 s. 303), Nordiskt immateriellt rättsskydd 2007 p.570-577



Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Korkein oikeus (Cour suprême) - Finland

Subject-matter

  • Approximation of laws
  • Intellectual, industrial and commercial property

Provisions of national law referred to

FI - Tavaramerkkilaki (7/1964), 4 § 2

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

  • Reference for a preliminary ruling

Formation of the Court

troisième chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Ó Caoimh

Advocate General

Tizzano

Language(s) of the Case

  • Finnish

Language(s) of the Opinion

  • Italian