CJEU Decision in “Genesis”, a good example of the relevance of the autonomous interpretation of the CTM Regulation
In Salvador Ferrandis and Partners we have read with great interest the recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 22nd March 2012, C-190/10, “Genesis Seguros”. The judgement refers to a preliminary ruling submitted by the Spanish Supreme Court concerning the interpretation of art. 27 Regulation 40/94 (at present Regulation 207/2009).
Broadly speaking, the CJEU is asked whether in the case where two trademark applications (one for a CTM, the other for a national trademark) are filed on the same day, the hour of filing is relevant in terms of assessing the priority date. According to Spanish Law the hour is indeed relevant to determine the filing date (Art. 11.6 Spanish Trademark Law). However, Regulation 40/94 does not contain any express mention in connection thereto. Shall national law be applied to complement what Art. 27 of the Regulation states?
The CJEU answered the question on the negative. The “Community trade mark system is an autonomous system with its own set of objectives and rules peculiar to it; it applies independently of any national system”. The Community trade mark regime has its own rules relating to the procedure for filing an application for a Community trade mark. In particular, Article 27 Regulation 40/94 contains a specific provision relating to the date of filing of an application for a Community trade mark and does not refer to the provisions of national law in that regard. The CJEU understands that the ‘date of filing of a Community trade mark application’ is an autonomous concept of the Regulation which does not require the hour and minute of filing to be taken into account. If the Community legislature had considered that those elements were necessary, that information should have been expressly mentioned in art. 27. The fact that OHIM de facto certifies the date and the time of filing of those applications is irrelevant.
The CJEU also recalls that the approaches adopted by the law of the Member States in relation to the date of filing do not have any effect on the interpretation of the provisions of Regulation 40/94. The applicability of national law is limited to questions which fall outside the scope of the Regulation.
While the decision might be deemed disappointing for those litigating before national courts and expecting national law to be applied in addition to EU Regulations, from a general point of view the autonomous interpretation of these instruments have great advantages. It enhances legal certainty for companies doing business in the internal market: regardless of the Member State where the CTM is intended to be defended, they can be sure that the Regulation will be firmly applied and uniformly construed.
Related Posts:
- Is the use of a Community trademark in more than one Member State necessary to consider that there is genuine use?
- Jugdement of the General Court on “3D eXam”: the extension of protection of international trademarks
- What is the Scope of the “Reasonable Compensation” for a Trademark Infringement Established in Art. 9.3 EUTMR? – CJUE Judgment of 22 June 2016, C-280/15, “Nikolajeva”
- European Union Trademark Licenses do not Need to be Registered for Licensees to Pursue Infringers, Says CJEU, as Opposed to the Interpretation of the EU Trademark Court of Alicante