Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62016CA0341

Case C-341/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Hanssen Beleggingen BV v Tanja Prast-Knipping (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction — Article 2(1) — Jurisdiction of the courts of the place where the defendant is domiciled — Article 22(4) — Exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of intellectual property rights — Proceedings to determine whether a person was correctly registered as the proprietor of a trade mark)

OJ C 402, 27.11.2017, p. 6–7 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

27.11.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/6


Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Hanssen Beleggingen BV v Tanja Prast-Knipping

(Case C-341/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction - Article 2(1) - Jurisdiction of the courts of the place where the defendant is domiciled - Article 22(4) - Exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of intellectual property rights - Proceedings to determine whether a person was correctly registered as the proprietor of a trade mark))

(2017/C 402/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Hanssen Beleggingen BV

Defendant: Tanja Prast-Knipping

Operative part of the judgment

Article 22(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as not applying to proceedings to determine whether a person was correctly registered as the proprietor of a trade mark.


(1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.


Top