One thing that has to mentioned at the very start is that the German and English version of this reference differ in at least one crucial point (difference between Search Results+Top-Ads and Keyword-Buying) which might be the result of a translation mistake.
Furthermore it was confusing that the court did not only make a clear distinction between Side-Ads, Top-Ads and the Search Results but also didn’t really address the question if the advertisements (displayed on the Search Engine Results Page: SERP), the court refers to them as “references to the advertiser’s website” contained the trade mark (Adv+ / Adv-) or not. As the court most probably refers to the function “Broad Matching” in paragraph  I assume that the rest of the reference therefore does not take the possible influence of “Keyword Options” (e.g. “Exact Match”, “Phrase Match”, Exclusive Keywords”) into account.
The Hoghe Raad addressed the question if Keyword Advertising (KWA) should be considered as “use” (German: “Nutzung“) of an registered trademark under Article 5(1) (a) of the Trademark Directive [1. a)]. The court asked further if a difference should be made between Keyword Advertising and Keyword Buying [1.b)] and if it makes a difference if goods & services are already offered in the advertisement displayed on the SERP or only on the linked, thus subsequent, website (Landing Page) of the advertiser [1.c)].
 Assuming the ECJ defines KWA as “use“, in how far does Art 6. (b,c) [descriptive use] preclude the proprietor of the trademark (TM) from prohibiting others to use his TM as a keyword?
 Assmuing that the ECJ defines KWA as “use” how far is Article 7. applicable where an offer by the advertiser relates to goods which have been marketed in the European Community under the proprietor’s TM or with his permission?
 Is a bit complicated as here the court raises the issue of Broad Matching (“keywords deliberately reproduced with minor spelling mistakes“) as it asks if the answer to  would stay the same if the keyword used the Broad Match option but the trademark later on gets displayed correctly on the landing page of the advertiser (which is not the same as the Ad shown on the SERP).
 Asks, assuming that the ECJ does not find KWA to be “use“, member states can anyway grant protection to their national TMs under Art. 5. (5).Case C-558/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 17 December 2008 — Portakabin Limited and Portakabin BV v Primakabin BV >>EN<<, >>DE<<