do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-752/18: Action brought on 24 December 2018 — Tecnodidattica SpA v EUIPO (Base for lamps)
Date: 2018-12-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, atlas, lighting equipment, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2019072EN.01003801.xml










25.2.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 72/38






Action brought on 24 December 2018 — Tecnodidattica SpA v EUIPO (Base for lamps)
(Case T-752/18)
(2019/C 72/48)
Language of the case: Italian

Parties


Applicant: Tecnodidattica SpA (San Colombano Certenoli, Italy) (represented by: S. Corona and F. Corona, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark (Shape of a base for lamps) — Application for registration No 14 997 308

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 October 2018 in Case R 76/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Plea(s) in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(a)(ii) of Regulation 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-828/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de commerce de Paris (France) lodged on 24 December 2018 — Trendsetteuse SARL v DCA SARL
Date: 2018-12-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: contract, freedom to provide services, sales representative, self-employed person








C_2019082EN.01001801.xml










4.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 82/18






Request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal de commerce de Paris (France) lodged on 24 December 2018 — Trendsetteuse SARL v DCA SARL
(Case C-828/18)
(2019/C 82/19)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de commerce de Paris

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Trendsetteuse SARL

Defendant: DCA SARL

Question referred

Should Article 1(2) of Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 (1) on the status of commercial agents be interpreted as meaning that a self-employed intermediary who is acting as an agent on behalf of and in the name of his principal, but does not have the power to change the prices and contractual conditions of his principal’s sales contracts, does not have the authority to negotiate those contracts for the purposes of that article, and consequently cannot be classified as a commercial agent and benefit from the status provided for in the Directive?


(1)  Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17).
Case C-827/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Kamenz (Germany) lodged on 24 December 2018 — MC v ND
Date: 2018-12-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, jurisdiction, private international law, property leasing, purchase, residence, transfer of property








C_2019103EN.01001301.xml










18.3.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 103/13






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Kamenz (Germany) lodged on 24 December 2018 — MC v ND
(Case C-827/18)
(2019/C 103/12)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Kamenz

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: MC

Defendant: ND

Question referred

Is the disputed principal claim for EUR 535, based on a notarial purchase contract of 10 February 2016 for the purchase of a residential apartment located in Großröhrsdorf, falling under the jurisdiction of the Local Court, Kamenz, which, derived specifically from the transfer of possession and enjoyment to the applicant on 1 April 2016, in accordance with Paragraph 6 of the notarial contract, was still effected by means of the defendant’s tenant’s rental payment on 1 April 2016 in respect of the residential apartment […] to be regarded as proceedings within the meaning of Article 22 of the Lugano Convention, (1) which have as their object the payment in respect of a right in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property, or is the international jurisdiction of a German court to be derived from another provision of the Lugano Convention, or [is] the international jurisdiction of the Swiss court which has jurisdiction in respect of the defendant’s domicile justified (Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 5 No 1 of the Lugano Convention)?


(1)  Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters of 30 October 2007 (‘Lugano II Convention’) (OJ 2009 L 147, p. 5).