Author:
Sándor Vida
Search for other papers by Sándor Vida in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

The article reports on some judgements of the Court of Justice EU concerning analogy, commenting them. Passages from the cases OMEL v ONEL, PAGO, GOOGLE, .eu Top Domain, DIOR are quoted. Then the question is raised: should it be considered as an analogy or a precedent? Definition of the notion “analogy” in French, English and German law are compared. The first conclusion is that analogy is understood in different ways by lawyers in these Member States of the EU. The second conclusion is that by a Hungarian lawyer’s understanding most of the examples quoted are rather precedents than true analogies. Moreover, it is observed that in translations identical terms ought to be used.

  • Si pater filium ter venum duuit, filius a patre liber esto (Tab. IV. 2. b.) see Pólay, E.: A római jogászok gondolkodásmódja (The Way of Thinking of Lawyers in Rome). Budapest, 1988, 24.

    Pólay E. , '', in A római jogászok gondolkodásmódja , (1988 ) -.

  • Stein, P.: Logic and Experience in Roman and Common Law. In: Varga, Cs. (ed.): Comparative Legal Studies. Alderabat, U.K. 1995, 343.

    Stein P. , '', in Comparative Legal Studies , (1995 ) -.

  • Földi, A.- Hamza, G.: A római jog története és institúciói (History of Roman Law And Its Institutions). 17th ed., Budapest, 2012, marginal 249.

    Hamza G. , '', in A római jog története és institúciói , (2012 ) -.

  • C-149/11.

  • Anderson, D. W. K.- Demetriou, M.: References to the European Court. London, 2002.

    Demetriou M. , '', in References to the European Court , (2002 ) -.

  • Regulation Nr. 207/2009.

  • Summary of the Observations of the Government of Belgium (information from P. Veeze, Legal Division, Benelux Intellectual property Office) drafted in the order of the questions raised by the Belgian Court to the Court of Justice EU. a) Is use in one country always enough? NO. The Joint Statement (1993) of the EU Council and EU Commission on interpretation of Art. 15 of the TM Regulation is not binding. Genuine use in the Community ≠ in a Member State Reference is made to Recitals 2, 4 and 6 of the Preamble of the CTM Regulation and to Art 12 thereof. The EU has grown since the introduction of the CTM Regulation (27 Member states, 500 mln inhabitants). Lots of Small and Medium Enterprises do not need EU wide protection. The Joint Statement contain an automatism (use in one Member Sate is enough), which contradicts the principle of an EU without borders. If not, is it never enough? NO. All circumstances must be taken into account. If it is never enough, what is needed? No answer necessary. Should the assessment of genuine use in the Community be done in the abstract, without reference to the borders of the territory of the individual Member States? YES. In a single EU market, frontiers of the Member States are irrelevant. The Joint Statement is in contradiction with this principle, since it implies an automatism (it refers to a Member State). All circumstances must be taken into account.

  • Essence of the Conclusions and proposals of the Hungarian Government (para 47 of the Opinion) a) Sec. 15 (1) of the TM Regulation cannot be interpreted in the way that the use of a Community trade mark is successful in that very Member Country. Though in such a situation the opposition [Sec. 42/2] or the application for revocation [Sec. 57/2] cannot be refused in the Member State where the use of that trade mark was proved. b) Sec. 15 (1) of the TM Regulation should be interpreted in the way that relating to genuine use the territorial borders of the Member States should be disregarded. Instead of that it should be examined whether the trade mark was used in accordance with its essential function within the Community. For excerpts of the Opinion see: Iparjogvédelmi és Szerzoi Jogi Szemle, (2013) 3. in the article of Vida S.

  • C-149/11; O. Sosnitza: Anmerkung. GRUR-Int. 2013, 185.

  • The wording of the operative part of the judgement is: Article 15(1) of Regulation No. 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that the territorial borders of the Member States should be disregarded in the assessment of whether a trade mark has been put to ‘genuine use in the Community’ within the meaning of that provision. A Community trade mark is put to ‘genuine use’ within the meaning of article 15(1) of Regulation No. 207/2009 when it is used in accordance with its essential function and for the purpose of maintaining or creating market share within the European Community for the goods or services covered by it. It is for the referring court to assess whether the conditions are met in the main proceedings, taking account of all the relevant facts and circumstances, including the characteristics of the market concerned, the nature of the goods or services protected by the trade mark and the territorial extent and the scale of the use as well as its frequency and regularity.

  • SZNTH e-Hírlevél of 23 February 2013.

  • OHIM Online Newsletter 04-2013 (26 April, 2013).

  • Directive No. 2008/95.

  • C-416/04.

  • In the German version of the judgement one can read instead the word “analogy”: “Bei der entsprechenden Anwendung der... angeführten Rechtsprechung...” (corresponding application of the referred case law).

  • In paragraph 29 cited, referred are the cases C-40/01 Ansul para 43, C-416/04 Sunrider v OHIM para 70, C-259/02 La Mer Technology para 27.

  • C-301/07; before the judgement: von Mühlendahl, S.: CTM Riddles Territoriality and Unitary Character. E.I.P.R., (2008) 1, 66; after the judgement: the same in: The Bardehle-Pagenberg IP Report 2009/IV. 12.

  • C-375/97 CHEVY (owned by General Motors).

  • C-236-238/08: Bonet, G.: Publicité sur Internet et renforcement selon la Cour de Justice: contrefaçon de marque ou directive No 2000/36/CE. Communication-Commerce Electrique — Revue Mensuelle LexisNexis JC., Juin 2010.

  • C-206/01; inter alia Vida: ECJ Judgement on the Pharmacist's Scale: Arsenal Case. Ingenieur Conseil 2005, 95.

  • C-569/08 — In my opinion the judgement can be considered also as an example of teleological interpretation. See: Vida: Teleological Interpretation in the Case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. GRUR Int. 2003, 106.

  • C-59/08; Bretonniere, J. P.: Marques de prestige: une protection renforcée par la CJCE. Revue Lamy, 2009, août-septembre, 23.

  • C-17/06, para 17, in which analogy to the ARSENAL case (para 40) and the OPEL case (para 18) are referred.

  • C-307/10 para 45, in which analogy to the PRAKTIKER case (paras 49-51) is referred.

  • Vocabulaire Juridique, Paris, 2001. *raisonnement par analogie: Procédé classique d'*interpretation rationnelle, relevant de la methode* exégétique qui consiste à étendre la solution édictée par un texte pour un cas à un cas semblable non prévu par le texte, en montrant que la raison d'appliquer la règle a démontré lorsque, dans la ratio legis, ce en quoi les cas sont semblables est determinant pour l'application de la règle.

  • Garner, B. A. (ed.): Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. 2nd ed., New York-Oxford, 1995.

    '', in Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage , (1995 ) -.

  • Der Brockhaus Recht: Mannheim-Leipzig, 2002. Excerpt: Analogie, sinngemässe Anwendung eines Rechtssatzes auf einen vom Gesetz nicht geltenden, aber ähnlichen Tatbestand. Analogie ist also nicht Gesetzauslegung, sondern Füllung einer Lücke des Gesetzes.

  • Tilch, H. (ed.): Deutsches Rechts-Lexikon. 2nd ed, München, 1992. Excerpt: Analogie ist die rechtsfolgemässige Gleichsetzung zweier unterschiedlichen Tatbestände... Analogie ist möglich, wenn eine Lücke des Gesetzes hinsichtlich eines anderen Tatbestandes vorliegt...

    '', in Deutsches Rechts-Lexikon , (1992 ) -.

  • Weber, K. (ed.): Rechtswörterbuch. 20th ed., München, 2011; historically see Schröder, J.: Recht als Wissenschaft (Law as Science). 2nd ed., München, 2012. 383.

    '', in Rechtswörterbuch , (2011 ) -.

  • Urban, N.: One legal language and the maintenance of cultural and linguistic diversity. Florence, Manuscript, 4.

  • Király, M.: Bábel virágzása és hanyatlása: Az Európai Közösség jogának hatása a nyelvekre (Rise and Fall of Babel: The Impact of Law of the EU on Languages). In: Liber Amicorum Gy. Boytha dedicata. Budapest, 2004. 196.

    Király M. , '', in Liber Amicorum Gy. Boytha dedicata , (2004 ) -.

  • Varga, Cs.: The Paradigms of Legal Thinking. Budapest, 2012. 381.

    Varga Cs. , '', in The Paradigms of Legal Thinking , (2012 ) -.

  • Collapse
  • Expand

The author instruction is available in PDF.

Please, download the file from HERE

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Éva Jakab

Co-Editor(s):
Viktor Lőrincz,
Fruzsina Orosz

Editor(s):
Samanatha Cheesman,
Zsuzsa Fejes,
Attila Kun,
Gábor Sulyok,
Márton Varju

Editorial Board

    1. Attila Badó
    1. Myátyás Bódig (Aberdeen)
    1. Zoltán Csehi
    1. Péter Cserne (Hull)
    1. Balázs Gellér
    1. András Jakab
    1. Miklós Király
    1. György Kiss
    1. Jan Kudrna (Praha)
    1. Herbert Küpper (Regensburg)
    1. Konrad Lachmayer (Durham)
    1. Andzrej Stanisław Mączyński (Kraków)
    1. Guido Pfeifer (Frankfurt am Main)
    1. Miklós Szabó
    1. Zoltán Szente
    1. G.J.J. Heerma van Voss (Leiden)
    1. Bernd Waas (Frankfurt am Main)
    1. Fryderyk Zoll (Osnabrück)

Advisory Board

    1. Péter Erdő
    1. Gábor Hamza
    1. Attila Harmathy
    1. László Kecskés
    1. Tibor Király
    1. László Korinek
    1. László Sólyom
    1. Lajos Vékás
    1. Imre Vörös

Acta Juridica Hungarica
P.O. Box 25
HU–1250 Budapest,Hungary
Phone: (36 1) 355 7384
Fax. (36 1) 375 7858
E-mail: acta.juridica@tk.mta.hu

  Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • Information technology and the Law
  • International Bibliographies IBZ and IBR
  • Worldwide Political Science Abstractss
  • Translation Studies Abstracts
  • SCOPUS
  • Cabell's Directories
  • HeinOnline

 

Acta Juridica Hungarica
Language English
Size  
Year of
Foundation
1959
Publication
Programme
changed title
Volumes
per Year
 
Issues
per Year
 
Founder Magyar Tudományos Akadémia  
Founder's
Address
H-1051 Budapest, Hungary, Széchenyi István tér 9.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 1216-2574 (Print)
ISSN 1588-2616 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Aug 2022 0 0 6
Sep 2022 0 0 3
Oct 2022 0 2 3
Nov 2022 0 3 3
Dec 2022 0 2 0
Jan 2023 0 15 7
Feb 2023 0 0 1