Judgment_paragraph 43 · European Union Intellectual Property Office v The KaiKai Company Jaeger Wichmann GbR (C-382/21 P)

43However, on the one hand, conferring direct effect on Article 4 of the Paris Convention runs counter, in EUIPO’s submission, to the case-law arising from the judgment of 25 October 2007, Develey v OHIM (C‑238/06 P, EU:C:2007:635, paragraphs 37 to 44), according to which the provisions of both the Paris Convention and the TRIPs Agreement – through which the European Union is bound by that convention – do not have direct effect. Furthermore, the absence of direct effect of the Paris Convention also follows from Article 25 thereof, as is clear, by analogy, from the judgment of 15 March 2012, SCF (C‑135/10, EU:C:2012:140, paragraphs 47 and 48). On the other hand, and in any event, the rule established by the General Court in the judgment under appeal cannot be inferred from the wording of Article 4 of that convention, with the result that the requirements of clarity, precision and unconditionality laid down by the case-law on the direct applicability of international law under EU law stemming, inter alia, from the judgment of 3 June 2008, Intertanko and Others (C‑308/06, EU:C:2008:312, paragraph 45), are not satisfied.