Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62021CN0256

    Case C-256/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 22 April 2021 — KP v TV, Gemeinde Bodman-Ludwigshafen

    OJ C 278, 12.7.2021, p. 29–29 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    12.7.2021   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 278/29

    Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 22 April 2021 — KP v TV, Gemeinde Bodman-Ludwigshafen

    (Case C-256/21)

    (2021/C 278/41)

    Language of the case: German

    Referring court

    Oberlandesgericht München

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: KP

    Defendants: TV, Gemeinde Bodman-Ludwigshafen

    Question referred

    Must Article 124(d) and Article 128 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the EU trade mark court has jurisdiction to rule on the invalidity of an EU trade mark asserted by a counterclaim within the meaning of Article 128 of that regulation even after the action for infringement based on that EU trade mark for the purposes of Article 124(a) has been validly withdrawn?

    (1)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).

    Top