Misinterpretation of the national law governing copyright protection

27-05-2014 Print this page
IPPT20140327, CJEU, OHIM v National Lottery Commission

TRADE MARK LAW

 

Court is allowed to obtain information ex officio about  the content, conditions and scope of application by the applicant of the annulment of invoked national rules.  

 

"44. As regards the judicial review conducted, subsequently, by the General Court, it should be noted that, as the Advocate General pointed out in point 92 of his Opinion, that review must meet the requirements of the principle of effective judicial protection. In so far as the application of national law, in the procedural context in question, may have the effect of depriving the proprietor of a Community trade mark of his right, it is essential that that Court is not deprived, due to possible lacunae in the documents submitted as evidence of the applicable national law, of the real possibility of exercising an effective review. To that end, it must therefore be able to confirm, beyond the documents submitted, the content, the conditions of application and the scope of the rules of law relied upon by the applicant for a declaration of invalidity.
 

46. In the present case, the General Court, after noting, at paragraph 24 of the judgment under appeal, that OHIM had applied Articles 2702 and 2703 of the Italian Civil Code to assess the probative value of the 1986 agreement, also took into consideration, in paragraphs 27 to 32 of that judgment, Article 2704 of that code, with regard to the reliability of the date of a private document, together with the national case-law concerning the interpretation and application of that article."

 

General Court infringed adversary proceeding by basing judgment on national law and  not putting the parties in a position to submit their observations.

 

"57. As is clear from the letters which were sent to them on 7 February 2012 by the General Court and the questions annexed thereto, although they were invited to put forward their point of view on the provisions of Article 2704 of the Italian Civil Code, the parties were not, however, put in a position to submit their observations on the judgment of 14 June 2007, to which no reference was made in those letters

 

58. that the content of the judgment of 14 June 2007 was crucial to the General Court’s line of reasoning."

 

IPPT20140327, CJEU, OHIM v National Lottery Commission

 

C‑530/12 P - ECLI:EU:C:2014:186