Monitoring References to the Court of Justice of the European Union
Field of law
91 case reports
A Chrome extension from one Spanish legal database injects instructions into the pages of another, halts browsing and offers to carry the reader across to its own content. The Tribunal Supremo asks whether that is 'alteration' of a computer program — a question that would move the fight from unfair competition into copyright.
By judgment of 14 March 2018 (ECLI:EU:C:2018:181) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By judgment of 20 December 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:992) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By judgment of 19 October 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:776) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By judgment of 20 December 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:991) the Court held that selling "Champagner Sorbet" does not unlawfully exploit the PDO's reputation if the product has, as an essential characteristic, a taste attributable primarily to champagne; absent…
By judgment of 8 March 2018 (ECLI:EU:C:2018:172) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By judgment of 5 October 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:738) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “Article 22(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and…
By Grand Chamber judgment of 17 October 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:766) the Court held that a legal person claiming injury from online publications may sue for its entire damage where it has its centre of interests, and that claims for rectification and removal…
By judgment of 14 September 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:689) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
On 12 June 2018 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2018:423) that a mark consisting of a colour applied to the sole of a shoe is not a sign consisting "exclusively of the shape" within Article 3(1)(e)(iii) of the Trade Marks Directive — the red sole is principally…
By judgment of 20 October 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:790) the Court held that the terms of protection in the Term Directive do not apply to copyright that had been extinguished before 1 July 1995, and that EU law does not preclude national legislation under…
By judgment of 21 December 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:998) the Court held that during the five-year grace period after registration the proprietor of an EU trade mark may rely on Article 9(1)(b) against a similar sign for identical or similar goods without…
On 27 September 2017 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2017:724) that where co-defendants in different Member States are sued over the same supply chain, a Community-design court can grant remedies with EU-wide effect against both.
By judgment of 18 May 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:390) the Court held that a legally distinct second-tier subsidiary with a seat in a Member State is an "establishment" of its non-EU parent for Article 97(1) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation where it is a…
By judgment of 22 June 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:468) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
On 14 June 2017 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2017:456) that the operators of The Pirate Bay themselves make a communication to the public by indexing and managing torrents of protected works, despite the content sitting on users' machines.
On 7 July 2016 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2016:528) that the operator of a physical marketplace which sublets pitches to traders selling counterfeits is an "intermediary" under Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive, and injunctions against it are subject…
In October 2014, the EU and Singapore concluded a free trade agreement. However, there is uncertainty surrounding how to classify the legal agreement. That is to say, is it an agreement which the EU has exclusive competence to sign and … Continue reading → Continue reading →
The European Commission has asked the CJEU for a legal opinion on whether the EU has exclusive competence to conclude the Marrakesh Treaty, which aims to help people with reading difficulties access published works. Background On 21 October 2014, the EU Commission published its ‘Proposal for a…
By judgment of 7 September 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:633) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By judgment of 16 November 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:878) the Court held that the French scheme licensing digital exploitation of out-of-print books precluded authors' exclusive rights: consent may sometimes be implicit, but only where every author is actually…
By judgment of 10 November 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:857) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “Article 7(2) 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…
By judgment of 25 January 2017 (ECLI:EU:C:2017:36) the Court held that Article 13 of the Enforcement Directive does not preclude national legislation allowing a copyright holder to claim, without proving actual loss, a lump sum of twice the hypothetical…
On 1 March 2017 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2017:144) that Article 9 of the InfoSoc Directive — provisions concerning "access to cable of broadcasting services" — does not cover national legislation permitting the immediate retransmission by cable,…
On 10 November 2016 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2016:856) that the public-lending exception can cover the lending of e-books on the one-copy-one-user model, digital lending being within the Rental and Lending Directive.
On 31 May 2016 the Grand Chamber ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2016:379) that the operator of a rehabilitation centre showing TV broadcasts on screens in its waiting and training rooms communicates works to the public and must pay the collecting societies — aligning…
By judgment of 29 October 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:735) the Court held that geographical data extracted from a topographic map retain sufficient autonomous informative value to be "independent materials", so a map can constitute a database within the Database…
By judgment of 22 September 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:717) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “EU law, in particular Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of…
On 17 March 2016 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2016:173) that a rightholder claiming damages on the hypothetical-royalty basis of Article 13(1)(b) of the Enforcement Directive may additionally claim compensation for moral prejudice — the licence-fee measure…
On 8 September 2016 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2016:644) that posting a hyperlink to works published online without the rightholder's consent is a communication to the public where the poster knew or ought to have known of the illegality.
By judgment of 21 January 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:35) the Court held that "evocation" of a protected geographical indication is assessed by reference to the average European consumer, not only the national public — and that the Finnish story of the Verla…
On 28 July 2016 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2016:611) that Article 14 of the Enforcement Directive precludes flat-rate schemes which cap recoverable lawyers' fees so low that the winning party is not assured recovery of at least a significant and…
By judgment of 9 June 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:419) the Court held that "reasonable compensation" for infringing a Community plant variety right covers the fee that would have been due for licensed production plus damage actually suffered, but includes no…
By judgment of 23 November 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:890) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
On 15 September 2016 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2016:689) that a shopkeeper offering free open Wi-Fi provides a "mere conduit" service and cannot be held liable in damages for users' infringements.
By judgment of 9 June 2016 (ECLI:EU:C:2016:418) the Court held that fair compensation for private copying may not be financed from the general state budget in a way that cannot ensure the cost is ultimately borne by the users of the private-copying exception.
By judgment of 16 July 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:497) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “Article 5 of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be…
By judgment of 25 June 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:422) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “In order to be able to benefit from the derogation provided for in Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant…
By judgment of 19 November 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:764) the Court held that a broadcaster which transmits its programme signals exclusively by direct injection to distributors, without the signals being accessible to the public during that transmission, does…
By judgment of 16 September 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:604) the Court held that to register a shape on acquired distinctiveness the applicant must prove that the relevant public identifies origin by that mark alone — not by it in combination with other marks on…
By judgment of 25 June 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:420) the Court held that where an EU trade mark and a contested sign contain a dominant Arabic word in both Latin and Arabic script, and the relevant public has a basic knowledge of written Arabic, the meaning…
By judgment of 12 November 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:750) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By judgment of 22 October 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:714) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “Article 4(1)(b) 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…
By judgment of 26 February 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:119) the Court held that the Resale Right Directive does not preclude the person liable for the artist's royalty, designated by national law, from agreeing with anyone else — including the buyer — that the…
By judgment of 15 January 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:10) the Court held that the Database Directive does not apply to a database protected neither by copyright nor by the sui generis right, so its user-freedom guarantees (Articles 6, 8 and 15) do not override…
By judgment of 16 July 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:471) the Court held that an alleged misapplication of EU trade-mark law by a court of the Member State of origin does not engage the public-policy refusal ground of Article 34(1) of Brussels I: recognition may be…
By judgment of 16 July 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:485) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “Article 8(3)(e) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights…
By judgment of 13 May 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:315) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and…
By judgment of 12 February 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:87) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
Are the ‘technological protection mechanisms’ used to protect video-games and video-consoles governed by the EU’s InfoSoc Directive 2001/29/EC or the EU’s Software Directive 2009/24/EC? Facts The claimants develop, produce and sell video-games and video-games consoles including the Nintendo DS…
By judgment of 10 July 2014 (ECLI:EU:C:2014:2069) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By judgment of 10 July 2014 (ECLI:EU:C:2014:2070) the Court held that the representation of a retail store's layout, by a design alone without size indications, may be registered as a trade mark for services consisting of offerings related to the goods…
On 19 June 2014 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2014:2013) that the individual character of an unregistered Community design is assessed against specific earlier designs individually, not against a combination of features drawn from several — and that the…
On 22 January 2015 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2015:27) that distribution-right exhaustion applies only to the tangible object placed on the market with the rightholder's consent — transferring the ink of a lawfully bought paper poster onto canvas creates a…
By judgment of 6 February 2014 (ECLI:EU:C:2014:55) the Court held that customs may seize a counterfeit watch bought by an EU resident from a non-EU online shop: the sale itself constitutes "distribution to the public" and "use in the course of trade", with…
By reasoned order of 21 October 2014 (ECLI:EU:C:2014:2315) the Court applied Svensson to framing: embedding a work already freely available online with the rightholder's consent is not a communication to a new public and needs no fresh authorisation,…
On 18 September 2014 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2014:2233) on the Tripp Trapp chair that the "nature of the goods" exclusion covers shapes with essential characteristics inherent to the generic function of the product, and the "substantial value" exclusion…
On 11 September 2014 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2014:2196) that Member States may permit libraries to digitise works in their collections in order to make them available at dedicated terminals, even where the publisher offers licence agreements.
On 26 March 2015 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2015:199) that Article 3(2) of the InfoSoc Directive does not preclude Member States from extending broadcasters' related rights to communications to the public such as live internet transmissions of sporting…
By judgment of 16 July 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:477) the Court laid down the framework that has governed FRAND litigation ever since: the holder of a standard-essential patent who gave a FRAND commitment does not abuse its dominance by seeking an injunction…
On 3 September 2014 the Grand Chamber ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2014:2132) that parody is an autonomous concept of EU law with only two essential characteristics: it evokes an existing work while being noticeably different from it, and it constitutes an expression…
By judgment of 19 June 2014 (ECLI:EU:C:2014:2012) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
On 27 February 2014 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2014:110) that a spa establishment transmitting broadcasts to televisions in guest rooms performs a communication to the public, and that no health-establishment exception can excuse it.
By judgment of 6 February 2014 (ECLI:EU:C:2014:52) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “The Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Arab…
By judgment of 18 April 2013 (ECLI:EU:C:2013:253) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “The condition of genuine use of a trade mark, within the meaning of Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the…
On 9 April 2014 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2014:244) that Regulation 1383/2003 does not preclude customs authorities themselves, absent any initiative by the rightholder, from initiating and conducting the proceedings to determine whether detained goods…
On 13 February 2014 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2014:76) that a clickable link to a work freely available on another website is not a communication to a "new public" and therefore needs no authorisation; it is otherwise where the link circumvents access…
By judgment of 7 November 2013 (ECLI:EU:C:2013:715) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “Article 13(1) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to…
By judgment of 13 February 2014 (ECLI:EU:C:2014:75) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By judgment of 5 March 2015 (ECLI:EU:C:2015:144) the Court accepted that private-copying levies may be charged on multifunctional media such as mobile-phone memory cards, subject to a battery of conditions: harm above a minimal threshold, no levy where…
By judgment of 11 July 2013 (ECLI:EU:C:2013:515) the Court held that indiscriminately levying blank media placed on the market for business purposes is permissible only if the scheme provides an effective and non-excessive right to reimbursement; a…
On 10 April 2014 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2014:254) that the private-copying exception does not cover reproductions from unlawful sources, and that levy systems must not factor unlawful copying into the fair compensation collected from everyone — a Dutch…
By judgment of 6 March 2014 (ECLI:EU:C:2014:130) the Court held that a trade mark may be revoked where it has become the common name of the product for end users alone, even if sellers remain aware of its origin — and that an owner's failure to encourage…
By judgment of 3 April 2014 (ECLI:EU:C:2014:215) the Court held that where several supposed perpetrators of copyright damage acted in different Member States, Article 5(3) of Brussels I does not give jurisdiction at the causal-event place over a defendant…
On 5 June 2014 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2014:1318) that jurisdiction under Article 93(5) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation lies only in the Member State where the defendant itself committed the alleged infringement, and cannot be founded on another…
For the purposes of Article 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive 2001/29/EC, an author has the right to prohibit a communication to the public of his work by cable but does a broadcaster have such a right in respect of their broadcasts? Facts In the surroundings of Bernau bei Berlin people can receive…
By judgment of 23 January 2014 (ECLI:EU:C:2014:25) the Court held that technological protection measures spanning both consoles and game media enjoy legal protection, but only within proportionality: the national court must examine whether comparable…
By judgment of 27 June 2013 (ECLI:EU:C:2013:435) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
By judgment of 18 July 2013 (ECLI:EU:C:2013:501) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
On 27 March 2014 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2014:192) that an access provider whose services are used to infringe copyright is an "intermediary" that may be enjoined, and that an outcome-based blocking injunction — leaving the choice of measures to the ISP…
The EU Commission has asked the Court of Justice of the European Union whether the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) complies with the EU law. Facts ACTA is the acronym for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. It is a treaty supplementing another key piece of international law…
By judgment of 18 July 2013 (ECLI:EU:C:2013:497) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
On 6 February 2014 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2014:49) in Red Bull v De Vries that "due cause" under Article 5(2) of the Trade Marks Directive can cover a third party's use of a similar sign that was already being used in good faith for identical goods…
By judgment of 7 November 2013 (ECLI:EU:C:2013:709) the Court ruled, in the words of the operative part: “1.
On 17 October 2013 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2013:665) that a supplementary protection certificate cannot be granted on the basis of an emergency marketing authorisation issued under Article 8(4) of the Plant Protection Directive; only a definitive (or…
By judgment of 22 October 2013 (ECLI:EU:C:2013:675) the Court annulled the Council's decision on signing the European Convention on the legal protection of conditional-access services: the Convention falls principally within the common commercial policy,…
On 13 May 2014 the Grand Chamber delivered one of the most consequential judgments in EU law (ECLI:EU:C:2014:317): a search engine is a controller processing personal data when it indexes the web, the Directive reached Google through its Spanish…
By judgment of 3 October 2013 (ECLI:EU:C:2013:635) the Court held that in online copyright cases Article 5(3) of Brussels I gives jurisdiction to the courts of a Member State which protects the copyright relied on and where the website is accessible — no…
By judgment of 19 December 2013 (ECLI:EU:C:2013:850) the Court held that a dedicated meta search engine which translates users' queries in real time into the search engine of a protected database re-utilises the whole or a substantial part of that database…
Can the particular shape of a chocolate stick be protected under the EU Trade Mark Directive 89/104? Facts Both the claimant and defendant companies make chocolate-sticks. In 1998 the defendant French company, Revillon, began making theirs in the form of ‘un sarment de vigne’ – a vine-shoot. The…
On 11 July 2013 the Court ruled (ECLI:EU:C:2013:516) that "advertising" in the Misleading and Comparative Advertising Directive covers the use of a competitor-referencing domain name and of metatags invisible to the eye but read by search engines — while…