Hylly
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö Tommy Hilfiger Licensing LLC, Urban Trends Trading BV, Rado Uhren AG, Facton Kft., Lacoste SA, and Burberry Ltd v. Delta Center a.s. Directive 2004/48/EC, Art. 11 : Decision of the European Court of Justice (Second Chamber) 7 July 2016 - Case No. C-494/15.
Julkaistu
Ulkoasutiedot
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa IIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, ISSN 0018-9855 ; 47 (8)
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms. The third sentence of Article 11 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as meaning that the tenant of market halls who sublets the various sales points situated in those halls to market-traders, some of whom use their pitches in order to sell counterfeit branded products, falls within the concept of an intermediary whose services are being used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right within the meaning of that provision. The third sentence of Article 11 of Directive 2004/48 must be interpreted as meaning that the conditions for an injunction within the meaning of that provision against an intermediary who provides a service relating to the letting of sales points in market halls are identical to those for injunctions which may be addressed to intermediaries in an online marketplace, set out by the Court in the judgment of 12 July 2011 in LOréal and Others (C-324/09, EU:C:2011:474).
Asiasana - Kontrolloimaton
*00002095nab a22002774a 4500
*00111170
*00520201106111829.0
*007tu
*008170117s2016\\\\xx\|||||\||||\|||||0eng|c
*035 $a23858
*035 $a(PLib-conv)0000023858
*0410 $aeng
*090 $aOMA:SA-II10
*24500$aTommy Hilfiger Licensing LLC, Urban Trends Trading BV, Rado Uhren AG, Facton Kft., Lacoste SA, and Burberry Ltd v. Delta Center a.s. Directive 2004/48/EC, Art. 11 :$bDecision of the European Court of Justice (Second Chamber) 7 July 2016 - Case No. C-494/15.
*260 $c2016.
*300 $a981.
*4901 $aIIC : International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v47 (8)
*520 $aThe third sentence of Article 11 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as meaning that the tenant of market halls who sublets the various sales points situated in those halls to market-traders, some of whom use their pitches in order to sell counterfeit branded products, falls within the concept of an intermediary whose services are being used by a third party to infringe an intellectual property right within the meaning of that provision. The third sentence of Article 11 of Directive 2004/48 must be interpreted as meaning that the conditions for an injunction within the meaning of that provision against an intermediary who provides a service relating to the letting of sales points in market halls are identical to those for injunctions which may be addressed to intermediaries in an online marketplace, set out by the Court in the judgment of 12 July 2011 in LOréal and Others (C-324/09, EU:C:2011:474).
*653 $aOIKEUSTAPAUKSET
*653 $aTUOTTEET
*653 $aVÄÄRENNÖKSET
*653 $aKOLMAS OSAPUOLI
*653 $aIMMATERIAALIOIKEUS
*8102 $aIIC International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,$x0018-9855 ;$v8
*852 $hSA-II10$cTOMMY
*979 $a0000023858
*999 $aMikroMarc$b[Article]$x7
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä
kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.