Judgment of the general court Case C-5/11 - article 4 Directive 2001/29/EC

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)

21 June 2012 (*)

(Free movement of goods — Industrial and commercial property — Sale of copies of works in a Member State in which the copyright on those works is not protected — Transport of those goods to another Member State in which the infringement of the copyright is sanctioned under criminal law — Criminal proceedings against the transporter for aiding and abetting the unlawful distribution of a work protected by copyright law)

In Case C-5/11,

REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), made by decision of 8 December 2010, received at the Court on 6 January 2011, in the criminal proceedings against

Titus Alexander Jochen Donner,

Judgment for a preliminary ruling — Directive 96/9/EC — Legal protection of databases.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)

15 January 2015 (*)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 96/9/EC — Legal protection of databases — Database not protected by copyright or the sui generis right — Contractual limitation on the rights of users of the database)

In Case C‑30/14,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), made by decision of 17 January 2014, received at the Court on 22 January 2014, in the proceedings

Ryanair Ltd

v

PR Aviation BV,

THE COURT (Second Chamber),

composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), Vice-President of the Court, J.-C. Bonichot, A. Arabadjiev and J.L. da Cruz Vilaça, Judges,

Advocate General: Y. Bot,

Registrar: C. Strömholm,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 12 November 2014,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

–        Ryanair Ltd, represented initially by M. van Heezik, A. van Aerde and R. Le Poole, and subsequently by A. van Aerde and R. Le Poole, advocaten,

–        PR Aviation BV, by A. Groen, advocaat,

–        the European Commission, by J. Samnadda and F. Wilman, acting as Agents,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

Case C-325/14, SBS Belgium – broadcasting via third parties.

Some broadcasters no longer broadcast directly to the public. Instead, a broadcaster will supply their channels and programming output to ‘distributors’ such as the cable, telephone, and satellite TV companies. Subscribers to the services provided by these distributors can then watch the broadcaster’s output. This does however generate a question of copyright law. Namely, for the purposes of the EU’s InfoSoc Directive 2001/29/EC, who is making a ‘communication to the public’? Is it the broadcaster? Or is it the distributor? Or could it be both?

Facts
SBS Belgium is a company that makes and broadcasts television programmes in Dutch, the language widely spoken in the Flanders region of Belgium.

Besides making its own programmes, SBS Belgium also runs two private commercial stations respectively known as ‘FOUR’ and ‘FIVE’ [VIER and VIJF]. These stations broadcast programmes that originate not only from SBS Belgium but they also include programmes which SBS Belgium buys-in from other domestic and foreign companies that supply programming content.

The legal issue here is one of copyright. Generally, programmes contain a raft of copyright-protected works, and rights holders can invoke copyright law to stop those works from being communicated to the public without their consent, something which is normally available at a price.

Judgment of the general court - Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (First Chamber)

30 September 2014 (*)

(Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark LAMBRETTA — Genuine use of the mark — Partial revocation — Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

In Case T‑51/12,

Scooters India Ltd, established in Lucknow (India), represented by B. Brandreth, Barrister,

applicant,

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent,

defendant,

the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court, being

Brandconcern BV, established in Amsterdam (Netherlands), represented by G. Casucci, N. Ferreti and C. Galli, lawyers,

ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 December 2011 (Case R 2312/2010-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Brandconcern BV and Scooters India Ltd,

Decision for declaration of invalidity of registered community design

OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS)

DESIGNS DEPARTMENT- INVALIDITY DIVISION

DECISION OF
THE INVALIDITY DIVISION OF 05/12/07

IN THE PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECLARATION OF INVALIDITY OF A REGISTERED COMMUNITY DESIGN

FILE NUMBER
COMMUNITY DESIGN LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS

APPLICANT

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT

HOLDER

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HOLDER

ICD 000004182 000694492-0001 English

Judgment of the general court - Article 8(3) and Article 165(4)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber)

29 November 2012

(Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark Fagumit and Community figurative mark FAGUMIT — Earlier national figurative mark FAGUMIT — Relative ground for invalidity — Article 8(3) and Article 165(4)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

In Cases T-537/10 and T-538/10,

Ursula Adamowski, residing in Hamburg (Germany), represented by D. von Schultz, lawyer,

applicant,

v

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by G. Schneider, acting as Agent,

defendant,

the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court, being 

Fabryka Węży Gumowych i Tworzyw Sztucznych Fagumit sp. z o.o., established in Wolbrom (Poland), represented by M. Krekora, T. Targosz and P. Podrecki, lawyers,

Decision on opposition №B14142, OHIM, Opposition Devision. Likelihood of Confusion – Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.

OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS)
Opposition Division

DECISION
of 10/03/2010
RULING ON OPPOSITION No B 1 414 277

Pharma Stulln GmbH

Werkstr. 3 92551 Stulln Germany

Engemannjörg-Berten Rechtsanwälte

Brandstr. 10 53721 Siegburg Germany

BIOLAN

against

Vion N.V.

Ncb Weg 10 5681 RH Best The Netherlands

Elzas Noordzij B.V.

P.O. Box 76842 1070 KC Amsterdam The Netherlands

Decision on Opposition No B 1 414 277 page: 2 of 6.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURE

Decision on opposition №B795106, OHIM, Opposition Devision. Likelihood of Confusion – Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.

OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET (TRADE MARKS AND DESIGNS)

Opposition Division

DECISION of 11/0/09

RULING ON OPPOSITION No B 795 106

Mohamed Dia

42, avenue du Général de Gaulle 95350 Saint Brice Sous Foret France

Cabinet Germain & Maureau

8, avenue du Président Wilson 75016 Paris
France

against

Distribuidora Internacional de Alimentación

S.A. (D.I.A.S.A.)
Plaza Carlos Trías Beltrán 7-4o Edificio Sollube
28020 Madrid
Spain

Novagraaf France

122
rue Edouard Vaillant
92593 Levallois Perret Cédex France

DIA

Decision on Opposition No B 795 106 page : 2 of 7

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURE