## Facts

- Two Dutch courts sought preliminary rulings on the effect of TRIPS Article 50 (provisional measures) in interim IP proceedings.
- In Case C-300/98, a luxury-perfume trademark owner obtained an interlocutory injunction in Dutch summary proceedings against a Dutch company alleged to have marketed branded perfumes in the EEA without consent.
- In Case C-392/98, a scaffolding manufacturer/distributor sought provisional injunctive relief against competitors alleged to have copied an industrial design, with claims framed under national protection of designs and/or wrongful-act rules.
- TRIPS Article 50(6) requires revocation or cessation of provisional measures, at a defendant’s request, if proceedings on the merits are not initiated within a court-set “reasonable period” or within a defined maximum period.
- The referring courts asked whether the Court of Justice could interpret TRIPS Article 50 in these contexts, whether Article 50(6) could be invoked by individuals before national courts, and what counts as an “intellectual property right” under Article 50(1).

## Issues

1. Whether the Court of Justice has jurisdiction to interpret TRIPS Article 50 in national litigation involving provisional measures where the subject matter falls partly within EU competence and partly within Member State competence.
2. Whether TRIPS Article 50(6) has direct effect in the EU legal order so individuals may rely on it before national courts to challenge continuation of provisional measures.
3. Whether “intellectual property right” in TRIPS Article 50(1) includes rights protected through general national wrongful-act (tort) provisions, in addition to rights expressly covered by TRIPS.

## Decision

- The Court held it has jurisdiction to interpret TRIPS Article 50 when national courts are applying it in a situation falling within the scope of EU law; it lacks jurisdiction for purely internal situations governed exclusively by national law outside EU competence.
- The Court held TRIPS Article 50(6) does not have direct effect and does not confer enforceable rights on individuals before national courts.
- The Court held “intellectual property right” in TRIPS Article 50(1) includes at least the rights expressly provided for by TRIPS; contracting parties decide whether other nationally protected rights fall within that notion.
- The Court stated that, despite lack of direct effect, national courts must interpret national law, so far as possible, consistently with TRIPS obligations.

## Legal Principles

- A court interpreting a mixed international agreement may do so via the EU preliminary-ruling procedure only to the extent the dispute falls within the scope of EU law and EU-assumed obligations.
- WTO/TRIPS provisions are not, as a rule, directly effective in EU law; they generally do not confer individual rights enforceable in domestic courts.
- TRIPS Article 50(6) does not permit individuals to disapply or override national procedural rules by direct invocation, but it informs consistent interpretation of national law where feasible.
- For TRIPS provisional measures, “intellectual property rights” covers at minimum the categories governed by TRIPS; Member States may treat additional nationally protected rights (including those enforced through wrongful-act doctrines) as within that concept for enforcement purposes.

## Conclusion

The Court confirmed limited jurisdiction to interpret TRIPS in preliminary references tied to EU-law scope, rejected direct effect for TRIPS Article 50(6), and required TRIPS-consistent interpretation of national law while leaving contracting parties discretion to classify additional nationally protected rights as “intellectual property rights” under Article 50(1).


Parfums Christian Dior SA v. Tuk Consultancy BV, Joined Cases C-300/98 & C-392/98 (C.J.E.U. 2000)