- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-421/20: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 March 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Acacia Srl v Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Community designs — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Article 82(5) — Action brought before the courts of the Member State in which an act of infringement has been committed or threatened — Claims supplementary to the action for infringement — Applicable law — Article 88(2) — Article 89(1)(d) — Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 — Law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) — Article 8(2) — Country in which the intellectual property right was infringed)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CA0421
62020CA0421
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
25.4.2022
Official Journal of the European Union
C 171/11
(Case C-421/20) (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Community designs - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Article 82(5) - Action brought before the courts of the Member State in which an act of infringement has been committed or threatened - Claims supplementary to the action for infringement - Applicable law - Article 88(2) - Article 89(1)(d) - Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 - Law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) - Article 8(2) - Country in which the intellectual property right was infringed)
(2022/C 171/13)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Acacia Srl
Defendant: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG
Operative part of the judgment
Article 88(2) and Article 89(1)(d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 of Community designs, and Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) must be interpreted as meaning that the Community design courts before which an action for infringement pursuant to Article 82(5) of Regulation No 6/2002 is brought concerning acts of infringement committed or threatened within a single Member State must examine the claims supplementary to that action, seeking the award of damages, the submission of information, documents and accounts and the handing over of the infringing products with a view to their being destroyed, on the basis of the law of the Member State in which the acts allegedly infringing the Community design relied upon are committed or are threatened, which is the same, in the circumstances of an action brought pursuant to that Article 82(5), as the law of the Member State in which those courts are situated.
Language of the case: German
* * *
(<span class="oj-super">1</span>) OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.