*The Name Behind The ECJ’s Keyword Advertising Decision: Ilešič

Let’s take a look at some facts:

Google France: V. Skouris, A. Tizzano, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, K. Lenaerts and E. Levits, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, A. Borg Barthet, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), J. Malenovský, U. Lõhmus, A. Ó Caoimh, J.-J. Kasel; M. Poiares Maduro (Advocate General).

Die Bergspechte: A. Tizzano, E. Levits, A. Borg Barthet, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), J.‑J. Kasel; M. Poiares Maduro (Advocate General)

Eis.de: E. Levits, A. Borg Barthet, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur); N. Jääskinen (Advocate General).

Portakabin: A. Tizzano, E. Levits, A. Borg Barthet, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), J.-J. Kasel; N. Jääskinen (Advocate General)


Two things become obvious: Levits, Barthet and Ilešič have been involved in all the Keyword Advertising cases at the ECJ, Ilešič in all cases as rapporteur. For more information on Ilešič please take a look at the ECJ’s website.

I have to admit it wasn’t my idea to search for the names in the text of the decisions but an idea I got from Knaak/Venhoeren (GRUR Int 2010, 385 (396)who also mention that there used to be a rivalry between the concepts of trademark protection by Timmermans and Ilešič and obviously the second succeeded. The authors in their article stated that the recent changes in trademark law (the extra requirement for cases of double-identity,  Art 5 (1) lit b) and the whole 4-requirements test for proprietor’s right to prohibit third party use of his trademark effectively stems from Ilešič.

(If you have no clue what I am talking about here you might want to check out one of my presentations on this topic; slides 20 to 35 or so…)

Does any of my readers know a little bit more about this issue or e.g. which decisions followed the concept of Timmermans?


So now at least we would know whom to ask for … if we only had the chance to do so😉

.

UPDATE: L’Oréal v Bellure: P. Jann, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), A. Tizzano, A. Borg Barthet, E. Levits. (Thank you Klara!)

UPDATE2: INTERFLORA: A. Tizzano, J.-J. Kasel, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), E. Levits and M. Safjan, N. Jääskinen (Advocate General)

2 Responses to “*The Name Behind The ECJ’s Keyword Advertising Decision: Ilešič”


  1. 1 Klara 09/07/2010 at 10:11

    You can add L’Oreal v Bellure to the list.


  1. 1 *ECJ Decision in C-323/09 INTERFLORA – ‘Same, Same But A Different Trademark Function’ « Austrotrabant's Blog Trackback on 24/09/2011 at 00:17

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




This Satelite Doesn’t Beep But It ‘Tweets’

Please click here if you want to follow this blog on Twitter.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 95 other followers

Author’s Rights

Stopline.at

Stopline.at - Online reporting hotline for child pornography and nationalsocialist content on the internet
JuraBlogs - Die Welt juristischer Blogs
Herdict.org

Previous Posts:

RSS WIRED Epicenter

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
wordpress stat

%d bloggers like this: