- 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-628/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 11 October 2021 — TB
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CN0628
62021CN0628
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
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 95/9
(Case C-628/21)
(2022/C 95/13)
Language of the case: Polish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: TB
Other parties to the proceedings: Castorama Polska Sp. z o.o., ‘Knor’ Sp. z o.o.
Questions referred
1.Should Article 8(1) read in conjunction with Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (1) be understood to refer to a measure to protect intellectual property rights only when the rightholder’s intellectual property right has been confirmed in these or other proceedings?
– if Question 1 is answered in the negative
2.Should Article 8(1) of the directive, read in conjunction with Article 4(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights be interpreted as meaning that it is sufficient to substantiate the fact that that measure refers to an existing intellectual property right, and not to prove that circumstance, especially in a case where a request for information about the origin and distribution networks of goods or services precedes the assertion of claims for compensation on account of an infringement of intellectual property rights?
(1) OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45.