Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
Ferrari SpA v DU (C-720/18, C-721/18)
Consideration of the questions referred
The sixth question
82

Ferrari SpA v DU (C-720/18, C-721/18)

Judgment of 22 Oct 2020law://eu/cjeu/2018/c-720-18/para_82@2026-11-10

82Consequently, the answer to the sixth question is that Article 12(1) of Directive 2008/95 must be interpreted as meaning that the burden of proof that a trade mark has been put to ‘genuine use’, within the meaning of that provision, rests on the proprietor of that mark.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Fourth Chamber
Cases: C-720/18, C-721/18 · ECLI:EU:C:2020:854
Decided: 22 Oct 2020
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court, Düsseldorf, Germany)
Applicant: Ferrari SpA
Defendant: DU
Rapporteur: M. Vilaras
Advocate General: E. Tanchev
Bench: 5 judges
M. Vilaras, N. Piçarra, D. Šváby, S. Rodin, K. Jürimäe
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62018CJ0720

Topics

System of property ownership

History · 1 version

22 Oct 2020Reading

Connections

Interprets 2: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016); 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 (Codified version) (Text with EEA relevance)
Cited by 14: Criminal proceedings against HF (C-435/22 PPU); Kartroi LLC v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1/24); Bouwbenodigdheden Hoogeveen BV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-144/24); Ferrari SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-1103/23)2 provisions; E.M.A. and Others (C-395/23); Rosalia Vila Tobella v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-118/24); Wonderbox v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-200/24); Skins IP Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-559/23); Pharmaselect International Beteiligungs GmbH and OmniActive Health Technologies Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-221/22); Mariusz Trus v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-585/22); Arkadiusz Kaminski v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-35/22); Hotel Cipriani SpA v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-358/21); Perry Street Software, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office (T-720/20); Maxxus Group GmbH & Co. KG v Globus Holding GmbH & Co. KG (C-183/21)5 provisions
Cites 8: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016); 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 (Codified version) (Text with EEA relevance); Centrotherm Systemtechnik GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (C-610/11 P); Oberbank AG and Others v Deutscher Sparkassen- und Giroverband eV (C-217/13, C-218/13); Rivella International AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (C-445/12 P); Budéjovický Budvar, národní podnik v Rudolf Ammersin GmbH (C-216/01); ACTC GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (C-714/18 P); Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV (C-40/01)