Opinion – 26/03/2026 – Austro‑Mechana, AKM v Aufsichtsbehörde für Verwertungsgesellschaften, Case C‑579/24

– The case concerns a request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court, Austria) regarding the interpretation of Article 2 of Directive 2001/29 and Article 17 of Directive 2019/790 in the context of online content‑sharing service providers and the scope of their liability for reproductions technically required to give the public access to uploaded protected content.

– The dispute arose between two Austrian collective management organisations – Austro‑Mechana (responsible for managing reproduction rights), AKM (responsible for managing communication and making‑available rights), and the Austrian supervisory authority. The issue was whether the digital copies created automatically on the servers of online content‑sharing service providers when users upload protected content must be subject to a separate reproduction authorisation.

– Austro‑Mechana claimed that its management licence covered the reproductions made on servers of online content‑sharing service providers in connection with the making available of protected content, and therefore such reproductions required a separate licence beyond the authorisation for communication or making available to the public. The Supervisory Authority rejected this view.

– The referring court asked whether:

• the making of digital copies required for the operation of online content‑sharing platforms constitutes “reproduction” within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2001/29;
• if yes, whether the authorisation required under Article 17(1) of Directive 2019/790 for communicating content to the public also covers such reproductions;
• if not, whether users must obtain authorisation for uploading; and
• whether rightholders may entrust management of the reproduction right and the communication/making‑available right to different collective management organisations.

– The Advocate General indicated that digital copies made on the servers of online content‑sharing service providers in the course of uploading constitute “reproductions” that fall within Article 2 of Directive 2001/29. The exemption for “temporary acts of reproduction” in Article 5(1) does not apply, as such copies may exist for prolonged periods and are not transient.

– The Advocate General further stated that Article 17(1) of Directive 2019/790 must be interpreted as covering all acts technically required for communicating or making protected content available to the public. Consequently, reproductions necessary for that purpose are automatically included in the authorisation obtained by online content‑sharing service providers, and so a separate reproduction licence is not necessary.

– Article 17(2) of Directive 2019/790 covers not only the acts of communication or making available to the public performed by users, but also acts of reproduction technically necessary to enable the upload of protected content, provided that users do not act on a commercial basis or generate significant revenues.

– The Advocate General noted that the question regarding separate management of rights by collective management organisations becomes unnecessary. However, if such a distinction were needed, Directive 2014/26 allows rightholders to entrust reproduction rights and communication/making‑available rights to different collective management entities. Nonetheless, in the context of Article 17 of Directive 2019/790, only the authorisation covering communication/making available would be relevant, as it necessarily includes the reproductions at issue.

Case details: https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/document/C/2024/C-0579-24-00000000RP-01-P-01/CONCL/318374-EN-1-html

Judgment – 25/03/2026 – ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd v EUIPO (NAVIGATE), Case T‑471/25

– The case concerned an action brought under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2025 (R 2200/2024‑1), by which the Board upheld the examiner’s refusal to register the word mark NAVIGATE on the basis of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation 2017/1001.

– The applicant filed an EU trade mark application on 16 April 2024 for the word mark NAVIGATE for services in Classes 41, 42 and 45 concerning, inter alia, electrical safety training, technological consultancy, engineering, expert appraisals, quality control testing, sustainability consultancy, computer security consultancy, and security consultancy and risk assessment.

– The examiner rejected the application, holding that NAVIGATE was descriptive and devoid of distinctive character for the services at issue. The applicant appealed.

– The Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the term “navigate” would be perceived by the relevant English‑speaking professional public as indicating the intended purpose of the services, namely guiding and directing through choices, risks and issues arising in the field of electrical distribution installations. Consequently, the sign was descriptive and lacked distinctive character.

– Before the General Court, the applicant relied on the infringement of Article 7(1)(c), the infringement of Article 7(1)(b), and infringement of the principles of equal treatment and sound administration.

– As regards Article 7(1)(c), the Court confirmed that a sign is descriptive if there is a sufficiently direct and specific relationship between the sign and the goods or services, enabling the relevant public to perceive immediately a description of one of their characteristics. It endorsed the Board’s assessment that “navigate” is understood, inter alia, as “to lead […] or to deal effectively with a difficult situation.” That meaning is not metaphorical and does not require additional cognitive effort.

– The Court held that the sign NAVIGATE, interpreted as “guiding or helping to deal with a complex issue,” directly indicates the intended purpose of the services in all three classes, namely guiding customers through complex issues related to electrical distribution installations. This indication of purpose is a characteristic within the meaning of Article 7(1)(c).

– The applicant’s arguments concerning metaphorical use, vagueness, lack of directness, and absence of technical terminology were rejected. The Court found that the relevant professional public, facing complex technical and safety issues, would immediately perceive NAVIGATE as referring to guidance and assistance.

– As the sign is descriptive within Article 7(1)(c), it is necessarily devoid of distinctive character under Article 7(1)(b). Therefore, the second plea was not examined.

– As regards equal treatment, the Court held that earlier EUIPO decisions do not bind the Court, and the applicant cannot rely on potentially unlawful past registrations to invalidate a lawful refusal.

– The action was thus dismissed.

Case details: https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/document/T/2025/T-0471-25-00000000PI-01-P-01/ARRET_NP/318297-EN-1-html