Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 19 June 2012

Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys v Registrar of Trade Marks

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Person Appointed by the Lord Chancellor under Section 76 of The Trade Marks Act 1994, on Appeal from the Registrar of Trade Marks (United Kingdom)

Trade marks — Approximation of laws of the Member States — Directive 2008/95/EC — Identification of the goods or services for which the protection of a trade mark is sought — Requirements of clarity and precision — Use of class headings of the Nice Classification for the purposes of the registration of trade marks — Whether permissible — Extent of protection of the trade mark

Case C-307/10


Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex
Judgment (OJ)
03/08/2012 Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys
View pdf documents
Judgment
ECLI:EU:C:2012:361
19/06/2012 Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Judgment (Summary)
ECLI:EU:C:2012:361
19/06/2012 Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys
Opinion
ECLI:EU:C:2011:784
29/11/2011 Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Application (OJ)
11/09/2010 Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys
View pdf documents
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

published in the electronic Reports of Cases (Court Reports - general)

Subject-matter

Reference for a preliminary ruling - High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division) - Interpretation of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version) (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25) - Classification of goods or services for the purposes of registration - Degree of clarity and precision required as regards the identification of the goods or services covered by a trade mark

Systematic classification scheme

1.
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.09 null
      4.11.09.01 null
        4.11.09.01.00
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.09 null
      4.11.09.01 null
        4.11.09.01.00
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.09 null
      4.11.09.01 null
        4.11.09.01.00


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

  • TFEU, Article 267 : paragraph 31
  • Directive 2008/95 : paragraphs 35 - 64
  • Directive 2008/95 -A03 : paragraphs 13, 43
  • Directive 2008/95 -A04P1 : paragraphs 14, 44
  • Directive 2008/95 -C11 : paragraphs 12, 36
  • Directive 2008/95 -C13 : paragraphs 12, 52
  • Directive 2008/95 -C6 : paragraphs 12, 40
  • Directive 2008/95 -C8 : paragraphs 12, 41
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -83/91 : paragraph 31
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -39/97 : paragraph 36
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -363/99 : paragraphs 41, 43, 57
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -273/00 : paragraphs 36, 37, 41, 46 - 48
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -421/01 : paragraph 32
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -49/02 : paragraphs 46 - 48
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -418/02 : paragraphs 40, 45
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -94/04 : paragraph 32
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -144/04 : paragraph 33
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -239/05 : paragraph 43
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -246/05 : paragraph 40
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -445/06 : paragraph 31
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -529/07 : paragraph 36
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -570/07 : paragraph 32
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -482/09 : paragraph 41

Operative part

  • Interprets : Directive 2008/95

Opinion

  • Directive 89/104 : point 34
  • Directive 89/104 -A02 : point 62
  • Regulation 40/94 -A07P1LB : point 64
  • Regulation 2868/95 -A01R1P1 : point 52
  • Regulation 2868/95 -A01R2P1 : points 15, 49
  • Regulation 2868/95 -A01R2P2 : points 14, 46, 54, 75, 91
  • Regulation 2868/95 -A01R2P4 : points 15, 49
  • Regulation 2868/95 -A01R4 : point 50
  • Directive 2008/95 : points 7, 33 - 98
  • Directive 2008/95 -A02 : points 8, 13, 38, 55, 64
  • Directive 2008/95 -A03 : points 9, 13, 38, 57, 64
  • Directive 2008/95 -A03P1LEL1 : point 58
  • Directive 2008/95 -A04 : points 10, 13
  • Directive 2008/95 -A04P1LA : point 59
  • Directive 2008/95 -A04P1LB : point 59
  • Directive 2008/95 -A05 : points 13, 38
  • Directive 2008/95 -A05P1 : point 11
  • Directive 2008/95 -A06 : point 38
  • Directive 2008/95 -A07 : point 38
  • Directive 2008/95 -A10 : point 94
  • Directive 2008/95 -A13 : point 60
  • Directive 2008/95 -C10 : point 36
  • Directive 2008/95 -C4 : point 34
  • Directive 2008/95 -C8 : point 35
  • Directive 2008/95 -C9 : point 94
  • Regulation 207/2009 : points 12, 98
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A04 : points 13, 38, 55, 62, 64
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A07 : points 13, 38, 57, 64
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A07P1LEPT1 : point 58
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A08 : point 13
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A08P1LA : point 59
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A08P1LB : point 59
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A09 : points 13, 38
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A12 : point 38
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A13 : point 38
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A15 : point 94
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A16P1LA : point 40
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A26P1 : point 52
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A26P1LC : points 14, 46, 54
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A28 : points 15, 49
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A34 : point 41
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A41 : point 41
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A42 : point 41
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A51 : point 60
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A52 : point 60
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A53 : point 60
  • Regulation 207/2009 -C10 : point 94
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -363/99 : points 50, 57, 64
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -517/99 : point 57
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -273/00 : points 2, 36, 61, 62
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -40/01 : points 32, 94
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -40/01 : point 72
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/01 : points 55, 66
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -283/01 : point 66
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -468/01 : point 64
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -418/02 : points 32, 50, 67, 94
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -49/02 : point 66
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -418/02 : points 35, 77, 84
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -239/05 : point 64
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -323/09 : points 38, 55
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -482/09 : points 34, 38
  • Court of Justice - Order C -282/09 : point 64


Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

  • 28/06/2010

Date of the Opinion

  • 29/11/2011

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

19/06/2012


References

Publication in the Official Journal

Application: OJ C 246 from 11.09.2010, p.23

Judgment: OJ C 250 from 18.08.2012, p.2

Name of the parties

Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys

Notes on Academic Writings

  1. Viefhues, Martin ; Bogatz, Jana: Wie ist "IP TRANSLATOR" zu übersetzen?, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht PRAX 2012 p.338-341 (DE)
  2. Idot, Laurence: Marques et utilisation des intitulés de classe, Europe 2012 Août-Septembre Comm. nº 8-9 p.51 (FR)
  3. Farache, Angélique: Protection par la marque : nécessité de précision et de clarté lors de l'identification, Revue Lamy droit des affaires 2012 nº 75 p.22 (FR)
  4. Ebert-Weidenfeller, Andreas ; Schmüser, Simone L.: Markenrecht: Eindeutigkeit bei Angaben im Rahmen einer Markenanmeldung - Verwendung der Oberbegriffe der Klassenüberschriften der Nizzaer Klassifikation, Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2012 p.750-751 (DE)
  5. Ashmead, Richard: IP Translator and trade mark registration goods/services scope, Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice 2012 p.844-846 (EN)
  6. Papakostantinou, Vaggelis: DEE - C-307/10, 19.06.2012 - Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys kata Registrar of Trade Marks, Dioikitiki Diki 2012 p. 1102-1104 (EL)
  7. Van der Kooij, Paul: (On)betrouwbaarheid van merkdepots - o.a. voor planten - na IP Translator, Berichten industriële eigendom 2013 p.371-378 (NL)
  8. Von Bomhard, Verena ; Nicolás, Elena: HABM: Praxisänderung im Umgang mit den Nizzaer Klassenüberschriften nach „IP Translator“, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht PRAX 2014 p.52-54 (DE)
  9. Kirkoryan-Tsonkova, Ofeliya: Neyasni termini na stoki i uslugi za tselite na registratsiya na targovska marka, Юридически свят 2014 n° 00 p.00 (BG)
  10. Киркорян-Цонкова, Офелия: Неясни термини на стоки и услуги за целите на търговска марка, Собственост и право 2014 p.75-82 (BG)
  11. Enghardt, M.F.A. ; Hekker, F.: Codificatie van IP Translator in het Trademark Reform Package, Intellectuele eigendom & Reclamerecht 2016 p.3-9 (NL)
  12. Donath, Guido: Art 28 UMV - Handlungsbedarf für Markeninhaber, Österreichische Blätter für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 2016 p.155-156 (DE)



Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

The Person Appointed by the Lord Chancellor under Section 76 of The Trade Marks Act 1994, on Appeal from the Registrar of Trade Marks - United Kingdom

Subject-matter

  • Approximation of laws
  • Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
  • - Trade marks

Procedure and result

  • Reference for a preliminary ruling

Formation of the Court

grande chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Lõhmus

Advocate General

Bot

Language(s) of the Case

  • English

Language(s) of the Opinion

  • French