Court of Justice 11 March 2003, C-40/01 (Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiliging BV.)

Also known as

In a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, the Court of Justice interpreted Article 12(1) of Directive 89/104/EEC, holding that 'genuine use' of a trade mark requires actual use in accordance with the mark's essential function—guaranteeing the identity of origin of goods or services—in order to create or preserve a market outlet, and expressly excludes token use solely to preserve registered rights. The Court further held that use of a mark for goods no longer newly marketed may still constitute genuine use where the proprietor uses the mark for component parts integral to previously sold goods, or for goods and services directly connected to those goods and intended to meet the needs of existing customers (such as after-sales maintenance, repair, and related accessories). The national court was directed to apply this interpretation to determine whether Ansul's use of the Minimax mark from 1989 to 1994—comprising sales of spare parts and extinguishing substances, and the provision of maintenance and repair services for equipment bearing the mark—constituted genuine use within the meaning of the Directive.AI