1. bookTom 8 (2019): Zeszyt 1 (July 2019)
Informacje o czasopiśmie
License
Format
Czasopismo
eISSN
1339-9276
ISSN
1338-6891
Pierwsze wydanie
05 Sep 2013
Częstotliwość wydawania
2 razy w roku
Języki
Angielski
Open Access

The Notion of the European Union Trademark

Data publikacji: 02 Aug 2019
Tom & Zeszyt: Tom 8 (2019) - Zeszyt 1 (July 2019)
Zakres stron: 21 - 31
Informacje o czasopiśmie
License
Format
Czasopismo
eISSN
1339-9276
ISSN
1338-6891
Pierwsze wydanie
05 Sep 2013
Częstotliwość wydawania
2 razy w roku
Języki
Angielski

1. JAKL, L. (2003) Evropský systém ochrany průmyslového vlastnictví a jeho vliv na vývoj v České republice. Praha: Úrad průmyslového vlastnictvi, 2003.Search in Google Scholar

2. LOCHMANOVÁ, L. (1997) Práva na označení: obchodní jméno, ochranné známky, označení původu výrobku. Vyd. 1. Praha: Orac, 1997, ISBN: 8090193838, 213 s.Search in Google Scholar

3. MARUNIAKOVÁ, I. et al. (2012) Komentár k zákonu o ochranných známkach. Banská Bystrica: ÚPV, 2012. 305 s. ISBN 978–80–88994–79–4.Search in Google Scholar

4. ONO, S. (1999) Overview of Japanese trademark law. <http://www.iip.or.jp/translation/ono/ch2.pdf>.Search in Google Scholar

5. PIPKOVÁ, H. (2007) Ochranná známka spoločenství a ochranná známka v evropském společenství. Praha: Aspi, 2007. 376 s. ISBN 978–80–7357–265–5.Search in Google Scholar

6. WIPO. (2005) Trademarks Past and Present. In: WIPO Magazine, 2005, č. 2 <https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2005/02/>.Search in Google Scholar

7. The Office of the Industrial Property of the SR. 2018. Methodology of Procedures in the matter of trademarks. Banska Bystrica: UPV, 2018. 65 ps.Search in Google Scholar

8. Judgment of the Court of 5 May 1982 Gaston Schul Douane Expediteur BV v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen, Roosendaal Case C–15/81.Search in Google Scholar

9. Judgment of the Court of 17 October 1990 SA CNL–SUCAL NV v HAG GF AG Case C–10/89.Search in Google Scholar

10. Judgment of the Court of 29 September 1998 Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v Metro–Goldwyn–Mayer Inc., formerly Pathe Communications Corporation Case C–39/97.Search in Google Scholar

11. Judgment of the Court of 4 May 1999 Windsurfing Chiemsee Produktions– und Vertriebs GmbH (WSC) v Boots– und Segelzubehor Walter Huber and Franz Attenberger Joined cases C–108/97 and C–109/97.Search in Google Scholar

12. Judgment of the Court of 22 June 1999 Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer & Co. GmbH v Klijsen Handel BV Case C–342/97.Search in Google Scholar

13. Judgment of the Court of 18 June 2002 Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Remington Consumer Products Ltd Case C–299/99.Search in Google Scholar

14. Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 February 2004 Koninklijke KPN Nederland NV v Benelux–Merkenbureau Case C–363/99.Search in Google Scholar

15. Judgment of the Court of 4 October 2001 Merz & Krell GmbH & Co Case C–517/99.Search in Google Scholar

16. Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 February 2004 Campina Melkunie BV v Benelux–Merkenbureau Case C–265/00.Search in Google Scholar

17. Judgment of the Court of 12 December 2002 Ralf Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent– und Markenamt Case C–273/00.Search in Google Scholar

18. Judgment of the Court of 8 April 2003 Linde AG (C–53/01), Winward Industries Inc. (C–54/01) and Rado Uhren AG (C–55/01) oined cases C–53/01 to C–55/01.Search in Google Scholar

19. Judgment of the Court of 6 May 2003 Libertel Groep BV versus Benelux–Merkenbureau Case C–104/01.Search in Google Scholar

20. Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 November 2003 Shield Mark BV v Joost Kist h.o.d.n. Memex Case C–283/01.Search in Google Scholar

21. Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case–456/01 P.Search in Google Scholar

22. Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 Procter & Gamble Company v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Joined cases C–468/01 P to C–472/01 P.Search in Google Scholar

23. Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2004 Heidelberger Bauchemie GmbH Case C–49/02.Search in Google Scholar

24. Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2004 Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) v Erpo Möbelwerk GmbH Case C–64/02 P.Search in Google Scholar

25. Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2004 SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office Case C–329/02 P.Search in Google Scholar

26. Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2004 Nichols plc v Registrar of Trademarks Case C–404/02.Search in Google Scholar

27. Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2004 KWS Saat AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case C–447/02 P.Search in Google Scholar

28. Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 September 2005 BioID AG, en liquidation v European Union Intellectual Property Office Case C–37/03 P.Search in Google Scholar

29. Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2006 August Storck KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office Case C–24/05 P.Search in Google Scholar

30. Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2006 August Storck KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office Case C–25/05 P.Search in Google Scholar

31. Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 January 2010 Audi AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case C–398/08 P.Search in Google Scholar

32. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 September 2010 Lego Juris A/S v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case C–48/09 P.Search in Google Scholar

33. Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2010 Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) v BORCO–Marken–Import Matthiesen GmbH & Co. KG Case C–265/09 P.Search in Google Scholar

34. Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2011 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case C–51/10 P.Search in Google Scholar

35. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 19 June 2012 Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys v Registrar of Trademarks Case C–307/10.Search in Google Scholar

36. Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 July 2014 BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgerate GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case C–126/13 P.Search in Google Scholar

37. Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 10 July 2014 Netto Marken–Discount AG & Co. KG v Deutsches Patent– und Markenamt Case C–420/13.Search in Google Scholar

38. Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 September 2015 Société de Produits Nestle SA v Cadbury UK Ltd Case C–215/14.Search in Google Scholar

39. Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 May 2017 Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd v European Union Intellectual Property Office Case C–421/15 P.Search in Google Scholar

40. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 June 2018 Christian Louboutin and Christian Louboutin Sas v van Haren Schoenen BV Case C–163/16 P.Search in Google Scholar

41. Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 13 September 2018 Birkenstock Sales GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office Case C–26/17 P.Search in Google Scholar

42. Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 February 2002 Eurocool Logistik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office Case T–34/00.Search in Google Scholar

43. Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 19 September 2001 Procter & Gamble v European Union Intellectual Property Office Case T–129/00.Search in Google Scholar

44. Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 9 October 2002 KWS Saat AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office Case T–173/00.Search in Google Scholar

45. Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 September 2002 Viking–Umwelttechnik GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office Case T–316/00.Search in Google Scholar

46. Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 March 2003 DaimlerChrysler Corporation v European Union Intellectual Property Office Case T–128/01.Search in Google Scholar

47. Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 15 September 2005 Citicorp v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case T–320/03.Search in Google Scholar

48. Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 27 October 2005 Eden SARL v European Union Intellectual Property Office Case T–305/04.Search in Google Scholar

49. Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 12 September 2007 Cain Cellars, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office Case T–304/05.Search in Google Scholar

50. Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 13 June 2007 IVG Immobilien AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case T–441/05.Search in Google Scholar

51. Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 Giampietro Torresan v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case T–234/06.Search in Google Scholar

52. Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 19 November 2009 Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case T–298/06.Search in Google Scholar

53. Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 2009 BORCO–Marken–Import Matthiesen GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case T–302/06.Search in Google Scholar

54. Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 29 April 2009 BORCO–Marken–Import Matthiesen GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case T–23/07.Search in Google Scholar

55. Judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 8 February 2011 Paroc Oy AB v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case T–157/08.Search in Google Scholar

56. Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 May 2015 Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) Joined Cases T–331/10 RENV and T–416/10 RENV.Search in Google Scholar

57. Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 November 2012 Getty Images (US), Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case T–338/11.Search in Google Scholar

58. Judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 January 2013 BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgerate GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM) Case T–625/11.Search in Google Scholar

59. Common Communication on the Common Practice on the General Indications of the Nice Class Headings (20th November 2013).Search in Google Scholar

60. Common Communication on the Common Practice on the General Indications of the Nice Class Headings (28th October 2015).Search in Google Scholar

61. Common Communication on the representation of new types of trademarks. 2018 <https://euipo.europa.eu/tunnel–web/secure/webdav/guest/document_library/contentPdfs/about_euipo/who_we_are/common_communication/common_communication_8/common_communication8_en.pdf>.Search in Google Scholar

62. Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 4 August 2003. The Office for harmonisation in the internal market. R 120/2001.Search in Google Scholar

Polecane artykuły z Trend MD

Zaplanuj zdalną konferencję ze Sciendo