The Court is expected to give a response to the questions, which address essentially whether a Community trade mark used in just one EU member state meets the requirement of genuine use, within two years.
In its decision, the Court cites the earlier Court of Justice decisions in Ansul, La Mer Technnology and Sunrider in support of the view that genuine use is an autonomous concept.
This means that use in only one member state does not itself mean that the Community trade mark has not been used in the EU, the court said.
The decision is published in Dutch. Onel trademarks (one of the parties in the case) has provided this summary translation of the questions:
1. Will the use within the borders of one Member State be sufficient to demonstrate genuine use of a Community trade mark?
2. If the answer is no, does this mean that use within one Member State will never be sufficient to proof the genuine use of a trade mark?
3. If this is the case, which requirements should be taken into consideration when assessing the genuine use with regard to the territorial extension of the use of a trade mark?
4. Or, contrary to the above, should the assessment of genuine use be deduced from borders of a territory (and be decided in view of market share, market of the relevant products, geographical market)?
