41As to that, the circumstances contemplated in Article 3(l)((c) of the First Directive 89/104 do not apply to the present case. The circumstances envisaged in the other two relevant provisions of that directive — refusal of registration, invalidity of the trade mark, or revocation of the proprietor's rights, which preclude its use being continued under Article 14(2) of Regulation No 2081/92 — presuppose the existence of actual deceit or a sufficiently serious risk that the consumer will be deceived (see, on that subject, Clinique, cited above, Case C-470/93 Mars [1995] ECR I-1923, and Case C-313/94 Graffiane [1996] ECR I-6039, paragraph 24).
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.