4.5.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/9


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 27 February 2013 — Martin Blomqvist v Rolex SA, Manufacture des Montres Rolex SA

(Case C-98/13)

2013/C 129/17

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Martin Blomqvist

Defendants: Rolex SA, Manufacture des Montres Rolex SA

Questions referred

1.

Is 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 related rights in the information society (1) to be interpreted in such a way that it must be viewed as constituting ‘distribution to the public’ in a Member State of copyright-protected goods if an undertaking enters into an agreement via a website in a third country for the sale and dispatch of the goods to a private purchaser with an address known to the vendor in the Member State where the goods are protected by copyright, receives payment for the goods and effects dispatch to the purchaser at the agreed address, or is it also a condition in that situation that the goods must have been the subject, prior to the sale, of an offer for sale or an advertisement targeted at, or shown on a website intended for, consumers in the Member State where the goods are delivered?

2.

Is Article 5(1) and (3) 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 (2) to be interpreted in such a way that it must be viewed as constituting ‘[use] in the course of trade’ of a trade mark in a Member State if an undertaking enters into an agreement via a website in a third country for the sale and dispatch of goods bearing the trade mark to a private purchaser with an address known to the vendor in the Member State where the trade mark is registered, receives payment for the goods and effects dispatch to the purchaser at the agreed address, or is it also a condition in that situation that the goods must have been the subject, prior to the sale, of an offer for sale or an advertisement targeted at, or shown on a website intended for, consumers in the State in question?

3.

Is Article 9(1) and (2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (3) to be interpreted in such a way that it must be viewed as constituting ‘[use] in the course of trade’ of a trade mark in a Member State if an undertaking enters into an agreement via a website in a third country for the sale and dispatch of goods bearing the Community trade mark to a private purchaser with an address known to the vendor in a Member State, receives payment for the goods and effects dispatch to the purchaser at the agreed address, or is it also a condition in that situation that the goods must have been the subject, prior to the sale, of an offer for sale or an advertisement targeted at, or shown on a website intended for, consumers in the State in question?

4.

Is Article 2(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights (4) to be interpreted in such a way that it is a condition for the application in a Member State of the provisions on the prevention of release for free circulation and the destruction of ‘pirated goods’ that ‘distribution to the public’ must have occurred in the Member State under the same criteria as indicated in the answer to question 1?

5.

Is Article 2(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights to be interpreted in such a way that it is a condition for the application in a Member State of the provisions on the prevention of release for free circulation and the destruction of ‘counterfeit goods’ that ‘[use] in the course of trade’ must have occurred in the Member State under the same criteria as indicated in the answers to questions 2 and 3?


(1)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.

(2)  OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25.

(3)  OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1.

(4)  OJ 2003 L 196, p. 7.