- 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-256/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 22 April 2021 — KP v TV, Gemeinde Bodman-Ludwigshafen
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CN0256
62021CN0256
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
12.7.2021
Official Journal of the European Union
C 278/29
(Case C-256/21)
(2021/C 278/41)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
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even after the action for infringement based on that EU trade mark for the purposes of Article 124(a) has been validly withdrawn?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).
* * *
Language of the case: German