Case Law of the CJEU

Duivenvoorde, Bram B.

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13924-1_3

Bram B. Duivenvoorde³

Part of the book series: Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation ((SEELR,volume 5))

1351 Accesses

Abstract

The average consumer benchmark has its origins in the free movement of goods case law of the CJEU. In this context, the average consumer benchmark was used by the CJEU to tackle what it regarded as over-protective national laws related to unfair commercial practices. Introducing the average consumer benchmark in the Gut Springenheide case in 1998, the CJEU explicitly based the benchmark on its earlier case law. It also made clear that the average consumer benchmark should not be seen as a statistical test, but that empirical evidence can be used by notional courts if deemed necessary. In later cases, the CJEU emphasised that social , cultural and linguistic factors can be taken into account in the application of the average consumer benchmark. Overall, the case law of the CJEU applying the average consumer benchmark elucidates that the average consumer is not expected to be misled easily. In fact, some cases clearly point towards the average consumer as a careful and rational decision maker. This is different in the CJEUs cases applying the average consumer benchmark in trademark law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

eBook: USD 16.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 54.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Not all cases in which the benchmarks are applied or mentioned are discussed in this chapter. This chapter focuses on those cases in which the CJEU either makes relevant general remarks on the application of the benchmarks or in which the application of the benchmarks provide further insights.
2.
CJEU 11 July 1974, Case C-8/74, ECR 1974, p. 837 ( Dassonville), paragraph 5.
3.
CJEU 20 February 1979, Case C-120/78, ECR 1979, p. 649 ( Cassis de Dijon). See on this case also R Schulze, H Schulte-Nölke and J Jones, A Casebook on European Consumer Law (Oxford, Hart, 2002) 36–47.
4.
Paragraph 8 of the judgment.
5.
Paragraph 12 of the judgment.
6.
Paragraph 13 of the judgment.
7.
See also N Reich and H Micklitz, Europäisches Verbraucherrecht (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 2003) 298.
8.
See also A Hucke, Erforderlichkeit einer Harmonisierung des Wettbewerbsrecht in Europa (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 2001) 70.
9.
CJEU 26 October 1995, Case C-51/94, ECR 1995, p. I-3599 ( Commission v Germany).
10.
Paragraph 34 of the judgment.
11.
Paragraph 36 of the judgment.
12.
See, amongst others, CJEU 21 May 1987, Joined Cases C-133–136/85, ECR 1987, p. 2289 ( Walter Rau), CJEU 12 March 1987, Case C-178/84, ECR 1987, p. 1227 ( Reinheitsgebot) and CJEU 14 July 1988, Case C-407/85, ECR 1988, p. 4233 ( Drei Glocken).
13.
M Dauses, ‘Consumer information in the case law of the European Court of Justice: a German view (1998) British Food Journal 244–253. See also G Davies, ‘Consumer protection as an obstacle to the free movement of goods’ (2003) ERA-Forum 57.
14.
See in this sense also U Franck and K Purnhagen, ‘Homo economicus, behavioural sciences, and economic regulation: on the concept of man in internal market regulation and its normative basis’ (2012) 26 EUI working paper LAW 5–6.
15.
See also H Rösler, Europäisches Konsumentenvertragsrecht (Munich, Beck, 2004) 116, S Ulbrich, Irreführungs- und Verwechslungsgefahr im Lauterkeits- und Markenrecht: empirische oder normative Feststellung? (Diss. Würzburg) (Berlin, Köster, 2005) 17 and J Kabel, Rechter en publieksopvattingen: feit, fictie of ervaring? (Inaugural lecture University of Amsterdam) (Amsterdam, Vossiuspers UvA, 2006) 13–14.
16.
CJEU 16 May 1989, Case C-382/87, ECR 1989, p. 1235 ( Buet). See also R Schulze, H Schulte-Nölke and J Jones, A Casebook on European Consumer Law (Oxford, Hart, 2002) 226 and H Micklitz, J Stuyck and E Terryn, Consumer law (Ius commune casebook) (Oxford, Hart, 2010) 43–45.
17.
Paragraph 12 and 13 of the judgment.
18.
Buet is one of the few cases before the CJEU on the free movement of goods that does not interfere with European law and that shows a more permissible approach to national laws of Member States. Another example is the Oosthoek case, which deals the Dutch Wet Beperking Cadeaustelsel (Law on the restriction of free gift schemes), which, under circumstances, prohibited the offering or giving of products as free gifts within the framework of a commercial activity. See CJEU 15 December 1982, Case C-286/81, ECR 1982, p. 4575 ( Oosthoek). See also H Micklitz, J Stuyck and E Terryn, Consumer law (Ius commune casebook) (Oxford, Hart, 2010) 44.
19.
N Reich and H Micklitz, Europäisches Verbraucherrecht (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 2003) 87. See also S De Vries, ‘Consumer protection and the EU Single Market rules—The search for the ‘paradigm consumer’ (2012) Zeitschrift für Europäisches Unternehmens- und Verbraucherrecht/Journal of European consumer and market law 228–242.
20.
CJEU 7 March 1990, Case 362/88, ECR 1990, p. I-667 ( GB-INNO-BM).
21.
CJEU 18 May 1993, Case C-126/91, ECR 1993, p. I-2361 ( Yves Rocher).
22.
See also N Reich and H Micklitz, Europäisches Verbraucherrecht (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 2003) 23.
23.
Paragraph 11 of the judgment.
24.
Paragraph 12 of the judgment.
25.
Paragraphs 13–18 of the judgment.
26.
Paragraph 16 of the judgment. See also T Lettl, Der lauterkeitsrechtliche Schutz vor irreführender Werbung in Europa (Munich, Beck, 2004) 135.
27.
Paragraph 5 of the judgment.
28.
Paragraph 14 of the judgment.
29.
Paragraph 17 of the judgment.
30.
See also G Davies, ‘Consumer protection as an obstacle to the free movement of goods’ (2003) ERA-Forum 55–57.
31.
See also R Schulze, H Schulte-Nölke and J Jones, A Casebook on European Consumer Law (Oxford, Hart, 2002) 77, 80 and S Ulbrich, Irreführungs- und Verwechslungsgefahr im Lauterkeits- und Markenrecht: empirische oder normative Feststellung? (Diss. Würzburg) (Berlin, Köster, 2005) 19.
32.
S Weatherill, ‘Who is the average consumer?’, in S Weatherill and U Bernitz (eds), The regulation of unfair commercial practices under EC Directive 2005/29 (Oxford, Hart, 2007) 127.
33.
CJEU 16 January 1992, Case C-373/90, ECR 1992, p. I-131 ( Nissan).
34.
Interestingly, the proposal for the Misleading Advertising Directive mentioned the exploitation of trust, credulity or lack of experience of the consumer. See G Howells, H Micklitz and T Wilhelmsson, European fair trading law; the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (Aldershot, Ashgate, 2006) 14.
35.
Paragraph 5 of the judgment.
36.
Paragraph 9 of the Opinion.
37.
This Latin phrase expresses that ‘the law is there to assist those who are vigilant, not those who are asleep’.
38.
Paragraphs 15–16 of the judgment. See in this sense also the more recent Lidl Belgium case in the field of comparative advertising, CJEU 19 September 2006, Case C-356/04, ECR 2006, p. I-8501 ( Lidl Belgium), paragraph 80.
39.
See also J Kabel, Rechter en publieksopvattingen: feit, fictie of ervaring? (Inaugural lecture University of Amsterdam) (Amsterdam, Vossiuspers UvA, 2006) 12 and C van Dam, ‘De gemiddelde euroconsument—een pluriform fenomeen’ (2009) Tijdschrift voor Europees en economisch recht 6.
40.
See also R Schulze, H Schulte-Nölke and J Jones, A Casebook on European Consumer Law (Oxford, Hart, 2002) 63.
41.
T Wilhelmsson, ‘The average European consumer: a legal fiction?’, in T Wilhelmsson, E Paunio and A Pohjolainen (eds), Private law and the many cultures of Europe (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2007) 243.
42.
CJEU 2 February 1994, Case C-315/92, ECR 1994, p. I-317 ( Clinique).
43.
Paragraph 5 of the judgment.
44.
This law has been replaced by the Lebensmittel- und Futtermittel-Gesetzbuch (LFGB) in 2005.
45.
Paragraph 6 of the judgment.
46.
Paragraph 19 of the judgment.
47.
Paragraph 21 of the judgment.
48.
Paragraph 2 of the Opinion of the Advocate General.
49.
See also T Lettl, Der lauterkeitsrechtliche Schutz vor irreführender Werbung in Europa (Munich, Beck, 2004) 138.
50.
Paragraph 25 of the Opinion of the Advocate General. For the social, cultural and linguistic factors, see also paragraph 18.
51.
See also B Keirsbilck, The new European law of unfair commercial practices and competition law (Oxford, Hart, 2011) 44.
52.
CJEU 6 July 1995, Case C-470/93, ECR 1995, p. I-1923 ( Mars). See also T Lettl, Der lauterkeitsrechtliche Schutz vor irreführender Werbung in Europa (Munich, Beck, 2004) 139, H Micklitz, J Stuyck and E Terryn, Consumer law (Ius commune casebook) (Oxford, Hart, 2010) 14 and I. Ramsay, Consumer law and policy, Oxford: Hart (2012) 170.
53.
R Schulze, H Schulte-Nölke and J Jones, A Casebook on European Consumer Law (Oxford, Hart, 2002) 116.
54.
Paragraph 24 of the judgment.
55.
A Hucke, Erforderlichkeit einer Harmonisierung des Wettbewerbsrecht in Europa (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 2001) 93.
56.
Schulte-Nölke and Jones also raise the question why the CJEU in Mars has not taken into account the specific interests of children and teenagers, who probably make up a large number of consumers of the product. See R Schulze, H Schulte-Nölke and J Jones, A Casebook on European Consumer Law (Oxford, Hart, 2002) 114.
57.
C Bernard, The substantive law of the EU (Oxford University Press, 2007) 106.
58.
CJEU 26 November 1996, Case C-313/94, ECR 1996, p. I-6039 ( Graffione). See on this case also S Weatherill, ‘Consumer image: linguistic, cultural and social differences’, in E Terryn, G Straetmans and V Colaert (eds), Landmark cases of EU consumer law (in honour of Jules Stuyck) (Mortsel, Intersentia, 2013) 8–12.
59.
Paragraphs 3–4 of the judgment.
60.
It is important to note here that the CJEU refers to two different situations in its judgment: (1) the case in which only the producer is prohibited to import the products or (2) the case in which nobody is allowed to import the products. In the first case, the Court argued, the claimant has no ground for the prohibition whatsoever (see paragraphs 18–20 of the judgment). Here only the considerations concerning latter case are mentioned.
61.
See paragraph 22 of the judgment.
62.
See on the discussion of social, cultural and linguistic factors in the Clinique case paragraph 2.3.6. See also C van Dam, ‘De gemiddelde euroconsument—een pluriform fenomeen’ (2009) Tijdschrift voor Europees en economisch recht 6.
63.
See also B Keirsbilck, The new European law of unfair commercial practices and competition law (Oxford, Hart, 2011) 49.
64.
Paragraph 27 of the judgment.
65.
Paragraph 26 of the judgment.
66.
CJEU 16 July 1998, Case C-210/96, ECR 1998, p. I-4657 ( Gut Springenheide).
67.
B Keirsbilck, The new European law of unfair commercial practices and competition law (Oxford, Hart, 2011) 50 and R Schulze, H Schulte-Nölke and J Jones, A Casebook on European Consumer Law (Oxford, Hart, 2002) 225.
68.
See on this benchmark also Chap. 5 of this book.
69.
See R Sack, ‘Die relevante Irreführung im Wettbewerbsrecht’ (2004) Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis 523.
70.
R Schulze, H Schulte-Nölke and J Jones, A Casebook on European Consumer Law (Oxford, Hart, 2002) 229.
71.
Ibid. See also S Leible, ‘Anmerkung zu EuGH vom 16.7.1998 (Gut Springenheide)’ (1998) Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 528 and U Reese, ‘Das “6-Korn-Eier”-Urteil des EuGH—Leitentscheidung für ein Leitbild?’ (1998) Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis 1035.
72.
Regulation 2772/75/EEC, replaced by Regulation 1907/90/EC. At the time of the proceedings, Regulation 2772/75/EEC applied. Because the Regulation has not been changed on any of the relevant issues for this case, the Court refers to the more recent edition (see paragraphs 3, 16 and 17 of the judgment). The same will be done here.
73.
Paragraph 9 of the judgment.
74.
On the basis of Article 10(1) of the Regulation, the seller is obliged to supply certain information on the packaging, such as the origin of the eggs, the quality and weight class and the ‘best before’ date of consumption. Apart from the information listed in Article 10(1), the seller is only allowed to give information complying with the second paragraph of the same provision. Amongst others, this means that information and symbols, used for marketing purposes, can only be given if they cannot mislead the consumer (Article 10(2)(e)).
75.
Paragraphs 28–29 of the judgment.
76.
See also and U Reese, ‘Das “6-Korn-Eier”-Urteil des EuGH—Leitentscheidung für ein Leitbild?’ (1998) Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis 1036.
77.
R Schulze, H Schulte-Nölke and J Jones, A Casebook on European Consumer Law (Oxford, Hart, 2002) 225.
78.
Paragraphs 30–32 of the judgment. The case law it referred to in the judgment by the Court will be discussed in detail in paragraph 2.3.
79.
Paragraphs 35 and 36 of the judgment, with reference to the Nissan-case (see also paragraph 2.3.5 above) in paragraph 34.
80.
See for further discussion on the use of empirical evidence also paragraph 4.6 of this book.
81.
CJEU 16 September 1999, Case C-220/98, ECR 2000, p. I-117 ( Lifting). After Gut Springenheide, the general applicability of the average consumer benchmark in European law was already confirmed in CJEU 28 January 1999, Case C-303/97, ECR 1999, p. I-513 ( Sektkellerei Kessler), on the application of Regulation 2333/92/EC on the description and presentation of sparkling wines. See also R Schulze, H Schulte-Nölke and J Jones, A Casebook on European Consumer Law (Oxford, Hart, 2002) 226.
82.
Paragraph 13 of the judgment.
83.
See on this provision in the UWG also the discussion on the Clinique case in paragraph 3.2.5 above.
84.
Paragraph 15 of the judgment.
85.
Paragraph 17 of the judgment.
86.
Paragraph 22 of the Opinion of the Advocate General.
87.
Paragraph 31 of the Opinion of the Advocate General.
88.
Paragraph 23 of the judgment.
89.
The Advocate General does refer to the possibility of social, cultural and linguistic differences, but he seems to see this as an exception to the main rule of equal application of the notion in all Member States (see paragraph 30 of the Opinion). The assumption that the name ‘Lifting’ does not cause any problems in Member States seems to be derived from the preliminary question of the Landgericht Köln (paragraph 20 of the judgment). The CJEU also takes this for granted. However, the fact that the name has not been contested does not necessarily mean that it does not cause problems for consumers.
90.
Paragraph 25 of the Opinion of the Advocate General.
91.
Paragraph 29 of the Opinion of the Advocate General.
92.
Paragraph 31 of the judgment.
93.
Paragraph 28 of the judgment. See also B Keirsbilck, The new European law of unfair commercial practices and competition law (Oxford, Hart, 2011) 52.
94.
Paragraph 29 of the judgment.
95.
See also C van Dam, ‘De gemiddelde euroconsument—een pluriform fenomeen’ (2009) Tijdschrift voor Europees en economisch recht 7.
96.
See Recital 18 of the Directive’s Preamble. See paragraph 2.4 of this book.
97.
However, it must be remarked that the Court does give a strong indication towards the direction of the final decision (see paragraph 31 of the judgment). See also T Lettl, Der lauterkeitsrechtliche Schutz vor irreführender Werbung in Europa (Munich, Beck, 2004) 72, H Micklitz, J Stuyck and E Terryn, Consumer law (Ius commune casebook) (Oxford, Hart, 2010) 14 and B Keirsbilck, The new European law of unfair commercial practices and competition law (Oxford, Hart, 2011) 64–65.
98.
CJEU 4 April 2000, Case C-465/98, ECR 2000, p. I-2297 ( Adolf Darbo).
99.
Now replaced by Directive 2000/13/EC.
100.
CJEU 26 October 1995, Case C-51/94, ECR 1995, p. I-3599 ( Commission v Germany). See paragraph 3.2.2 above.
101.
Paragraph 22 of the judgment.
102.
Paragraph 27 of the judgment.
103.
CJEU 15 July 2004, Case C-239/02, ECR 2004, p. I-7007 ( Douwe Egberts v Westrom Pharma), paragraphs 15–16.
104.
Paragraph 32 of the judgment.
105.
The Belgian legislation was partly tested (concerning labelling) against Article 18(2) of the Directive, which allows certain limitations but subject to the principle of proportionality, while another part (concerning advertising of foodstuffs) was tested directly against Article 28 and 30 EC Treaty. Both lead to the same result in this case. See paragraphs 43–44 and 54–56 of the judgment.
106.
Paragraphs 43–46 of the judgment.
107.
See e.g. CJEU 23 April 2009, Joined Cases C-261/07 and C-299/07, ECR 2009, p. I-2949 ( VTB-VAB v Total/Galatea v Sonoma) and CJEU 14 January 2010, Case C-304/08, ECR 2010, p. I-217 ( Plus).
108.
Paragraph 54 of the Opinion.
109.
Paragraphs 78–79 of the Opinion.
110.
CJEU 9 November 2010, Case C-540/08, ECR 2010, p. I-10909 ( Mediaprint).
111.
Paragraph 102 of the Opinion.
112.
Paragraph 103 of the Opinion.
113.
See on this issue more elaborately paragraph 4.2 of this book.
114.
CJEU 30 April 2014, Case C-26/13 (Kásler) (not yet published in ECR).
115.
Paragraph 74 of the judgment.
116.
See also V Mak, ‘Standards of protection: in search of the ‘average consumer’ of EU law in the proposal for the Consumer Rights Directive’ (2011) European review of private law 27–29 and J Kabel, Rechter en publieksopvattingen: feit, fictie of ervaring? (Inaugural lecture University of Amsterdam) (Amsterdam, Vossiuspers UvA, 2006) 12.
117.
G Tritton, Intellectual property in Europe (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2008) 227.
118.
G Tritton, Intellectual property in Europe (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2008) 225.
119.
Originally: 89/104/EEC.
120.
This change was brought about by the 2009 Lisbon Treaty.
121.
Article 4(1)(a) of the Trade Mark Directive and Article 8(1)(a) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation.
122.
Article 5(1)(a) of the Trade Mark Directive and Article 9(1)(a) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation.
123.
See, for example, CJEU 20 March 2003, Case C-291/00, ECR 2003, p. I-2799 ( LTJ Diffusion v Sadas Vertbaudet), paragraph 52.
124.
Articles 4(1)(b) (ground of refusal of registration) and 5(1)(b) (ground for infringement procedure) of the Trade Mark Directive and Articles 8(1)(b) (ground for refusal of registration) and 9(1)(b) (ground for infringement procedure) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation.
125.
See e.g. CJEU 12 January 2006, Case C-361/04, ECR 2006, p. I-643 ( Picasso), paragraph 36, CJEU 3 September 2009, Case C-498/07 P, ECR p. I-7371 ( Aceites del Sur v Koipe), paragraph 74 and CJEU 10 April 2008, Case C102/07, ECR 2008, p. I-2439 ( Adidas), paragraph 35.
126.
Article 3(1)(b) of the Trade Mark Directive and Article 7(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation.
127.
GC 19 November 2009, Case T-234/06, ECR II-4185 ( Cannabis).
128.
CJEU 18 June 2002, Case C-299/99, ECR 2002, p. I-5475 ( Philips v Remington).
129.
Apart from the two cases mentioned above, see, for example, CJEU 29 April 2004, Joined Cases C-473/01 and C-474/01, ECR 2004, p. I-5141 ( Proctor & Gamble), paragraph 57, CJEU 16 September 2004, Case C-329/02 P, ECR 2004, p. I-8317 ( Sat.1), paragraph 24, GC 10 October 2007, Case T-460/05, ECR 2007, p. II-4207 ( Bang & Olufsen), paragraph 35, CJEU 21 October 2004, Case C-64/02, ECR 2004, p. I-10031 and ( Erpo Möbelwerk), paragraph 43. See also A Puttemans, ‘The average consumer’s degree of attention in trade mark cases’, in E Terryn, G Straetmans and V Colaert (eds), Landmark cases of EU consumer law (in honour of Jules Stuyck) (Mortsel, Intersentia, 2013) 28.
130.
It must be noted that there is little case law with regard to the first category, so that the further remarks are mainly based on case-law on the second and third category.
131.
CJEU 22 June 1999, Case C-342/97, ECR 1999, p. I-3819 ( Lloyd Schuhfabrik).
132.
See paragraph 12 of the judgment.
133.
See paragraph 25 of the judgment. The CJEU refers to the Sabel case (CJEU 11 November 1997, Case C-251/95, ECR 1997, p. I-6191), in which it already uses the term ‘average consumer’, but does not use the Gut Springenheide formula. See also A Puttemans, ‘The average consumer’s degree of attention in trade mark cases’, in E Terryn, G Straetmans and V Colaert (eds), Landmark cases of EU consumer law (in honour of Jules Stuyck) (Mortsel, Intersentia, 2013) 26.
134.
See paragraph 26 of the judgment.
135.
See also J Kabel, Rechter en publieksopvattingen: feit, fictie of ervaring? (Inaugural lecture University of Amsterdam) (Amsterdam, Vossiuspers UvA, 2006).
136.
See e.g. CJEU 16 September 2004, Case C-329/02 P, ECR 2004, p. I-8317 ( Sat.1), paragraph 24 and GC 29 September 2009, Case T-139/08, ECR 2009, p. II-3535 ( Smiley Company) paragraph 40.
137.
CJEU 12 February 2004, Case C-218/01, ECR 2004 p. I-1725 ( Henkel). CJEU 29 April 2004, Joined Cases C-473/01 and C-474/01, ECR 2004, p. I-5141 ( Proctor & Gamble). For a critical appraisal of the latter, see J Davis, ‘Locating the average consumer: his judicial origins, intellectual influences and current role in European trade mark law’ (2005) Intellectual property quarterly 201–202.
138.
GC 15 December 2005, Case T-262/04, ECR 2005, p. II-5959 ( Bic).
139.
CJEU 3 September 2009, Case C-498/07 P, ECR p. I-7371 ( Aceites del Sur v Koipe). See also A Puttemans, ‘The average consumer’s degree of attention in trade mark cases’, in E Terryn, G Straetmans and V Colaert (eds), Landmark cases of EU consumer law (in honour of Jules Stuyck) (Mortsel, Intersentia, 2013) 21.
140.
CJEU 12 January 2006, Case C-361/04, ECR 2006, p. I-643 ( Picasso), paragraphs 39–40.
141.
GC 12 January 2006, Case T-147/03, ECR 2006, p. II-11 ( Leclerc).
142.
GC 10 October 2007, Case T-460/05, ECR 2007, p. II-4207 ( Bang & Olufsen).
143.
GC 13 June 2007, Case T-441/05, ECR 2007, p. II-1937 (IVG Immobilien). See also GC 6 October 2004, Joined Cases T-117/03 to T-119/03 and T-171/03, ECR 2004, p. II-3471 (New Look).
144.
GC 15 September 2005, Case T-320/03, ECR 2005, p. II-3411 (Live Richly).
145.
Paragraphs 73–74 of the judgment. See also GC 5 December 2002, Case T-130/01, ECR 2002, p. II-5179 (Real People, Real Solutions), paragraphs 24–29.
146.
See on this issue also J Kabel, Rechter en publieksopvattingen: feit, fictie of ervaring? (Inaugural lecture University of Amsterdam) (Amsterdam, Vossiuspers UvA, 2006) 16.
147.
See also, for example, CJEU 25 January 2007, Case C-48/05, ECR 2007, p. I-1017 (Adam Opel) (‘average consumer of products of the toy industry’).
148.
The argument was tried by one of the parties in the Zipcar case. The argument was made that because car rental for tourists was a luxury service, the consumers of that service would be more affluent in English, and therefore less likely to confuse the marks at stake. The GC rejected the argument. See GC 25 June 2008, Case T-36/07 (Zipcar), paragraphs 19 and 32–33.
149.
See e.g. GC 20 November 2007, Case T-149/06, ECR 2007, p. II-4755 (Castellani), paragraphs 48 and 56 and GC 25 June 2008, Case T-36/07 (Zipcar) (see hyperlink above), paragraph 34.
150.
GC 20 April 2005, Case T-211/03, ECR 2005, p. II-1297 (Naber).
151.
GC 20 July 2004, Case T-311/02, ECR 2004, p. II-02957 (Lissotschenko).
152.
GC 26 November 2003, Case T-222/02, ECR 2003, p. II-4995 (Robotunits), paragraph 36 and GC 14 September 2004, Case T-183/03, ECR 2004, p. II-3113 (Applied Molecular Evolution), paragraphs 15–16.
153.
GC 26 November 2003, Case T-222/02, ECR 2003, p. II-4995 (Robotunits), paragraph 36 and GC 25 May 2005, Case T-288/03, ECR 2005, p. II-1767 (TeleTech), paragraph 79.
154.
GC 20 July 2004, Case T-311/02, ECR 2004, p. II-2957 ( Lissotschenko), paragraph 28, GC 20 April 2005, Case T-211/03, ECR 2005, p. II-1297 (Naber), paragraphs 23, 43 and 50 and GC 4 May 2005, Case T-359/02, ECR 2005, p. II-1515 ( Star TV), paragraphs 28–29.
155.
See similarly J Kabel, Rechter en publieksopvattingen: feit, fictie of ervaring? (Inaugural lecture University of Amsterdam) (Amsterdam, Vossiuspers UvA, 2006) 17.
156.
See similarly J Kabel, Rechter en publieksopvattingen: feit, fictie of ervaring? (Inaugural lecture University of Amsterdam) (Amsterdam, Vossiuspers UvA, 2006). Also Puttemans points out that the two fields of application are not in line. A Puttemans, ‘The average consumer’s degree of attention in trade mark cases’, in E Terryn, G Straetmans and V Colaert (eds), Landmark cases of EU consumer law (in honour of Jules Stuyck) (Mortsel, Intersentia, 2013) 34.
157.
SEC (2009) 1666, p. 26.

References

Bernard, C, The substantive law of the EU (Oxford University Press, 2007).
Google Scholar
Davies, G, ‘Consumer protection as an obstacle to the free movement of goods’ (2003) ERA-Forum 55.
Google Scholar
Davis, J, Locating the average consumer: his judicial origins, intellectual influences and current role in European trade mark law (2005) Intellectual property quarterly 183.
Google Scholar
De Vries, S, ‘Consumer protection and the EU Single Market rules—The search for the ‘paradigm consumer’ (2012) Zeitschrift für Europäisches Unternehmens- und Verbraucherrecht/ Journal of European consumer and market law 228.
Google Scholar
Dauses, M, ‘Consumer information in the case law of the European Court of Justice: a German view (1998) British Food Journal 244.
Google Scholar
Franck, U and Purnhagen, K, ‘Homo economicus, behavioural sciences, and economic regulation: on the concept of man in internal market regulation and its normative basis' (2012) 26 EUI working paper LAW.
Google Scholar
Hucke, A, Erforderlichkeit einer Harmonisierung des Wettbewerbsrecht in Europa (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 2001).
Google Scholar
Howells, G, Micklitz, H and Wilhelmsson, T, European fair trading law; the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (Aldershot, Ashgate, 2006).
Google Scholar
Keirsbilck, B, The new European law of unfair commercial practices and competition law (Oxford, Hart, 2011).
Google Scholar
Leible, S, ‘Anmerkung zu EuGH vom 16.7.1998 (Gut Springenheide)’ (1998) Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 528.
Google Scholar
Lettl, T, Der lauterkeitsrechtliche Schutz vor irreführender Werbung in Europa (Munich, Beck, 2004).
Google Scholar
Mak, V, ‘Standards of protection: in search of the ‘average consumer’ of EU law in the proposal for the Consumer Rights Directive’ (2011) European review of private law 25.
Google Scholar
Micklitz, H, Stuyck, J and Terryn, E, Consumer law (Ius commune casebook) (Oxford, Hart, 2010).
Google Scholar
Puttemans, A, ‘The average consumer’s degree of attention in trade mark cases’, in E Terryn, G Straetmans and V Colaert (eds), Landmark cases of EU consumer law (in honour of Jules Stuyck) (Mortsel, Intersentia, 2013) 21–34.
Google Scholar
Ramsay, I, Consumer law and policy, Oxford: Hart (2012).
Google Scholar
Reese, U, ‘Das “6-Korn-Eier”-Urteil des EuGH—Leitentscheidung für ein Leitbild?’ (1998) Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis 1035.
Google Scholar
Reich, N and Micklitz, H, Europäisches Verbraucherrecht (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 2003).
Google Scholar
Rösler, H, Europäisches Konsumentenvertragsrecht (Munich, Beck, 2004).
Google Scholar
Sack, R, ‘Die relevante Irreführung im Wettbewerbsrecht’ (2004) Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis 521.
Google Scholar
Schulze, R, Schulte-Nölke H and Jones, J, A Casebook on European Consumer Law (Oxford, Hart, 2002).
Google Scholar
Tritton, G, Intellectual property in Europe (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2008).
Google Scholar
Ulbrich, S, Irreführungs- und Verwechslungsgefahr im Lauterkeits- und Markenrecht: empirische oder normative Feststellung? (Diss. Würzburg) (Berlin, Köster, 2005).
Google Scholar
Van Dam, C, ‘De gemiddelde euroconsument—een pluriform fenomeen’ (2009) Tijdschrift voor Europees en economisch recht 3.
Google Scholar
Wilhelmsson, T, ‘The average European consumer: a legal fiction?’, in T Wilhelmsson, E Paunio and A Pohjolainen (eds), Private law and the many cultures of Europe (The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2007) 243–268.
Google Scholar
Weatherill, S, ‘Who is the average consumer?’, in S Weatherill and U Bernitz (eds), The regulation of unfair commercial practices under EC Directive 2005/29 (Oxford, Hart, 2007) 115–138.
Google Scholar
Weatherill, S, ‘Consumer image: linguistic, cultural and social differences’, in E Terryn, G Straetmans and V Colaert (eds), Landmark cases of EU consumer law (in honour of Jules Stuyck) (Mortsel, Intersentia, 2013) 1–20.
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Hoogenraad & Haak advertising + IP advocaten / University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Bram B. Duivenvoorde

Authors

Bram B. Duivenvoorde
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bram B. Duivenvoorde .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Duivenvoorde, B. (2015). Case Law of the CJEU. In: The Consumer Benchmarks in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13924-1_3

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13924-1_3
Published: 12 May 2015
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-13923-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-13924-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics