do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-658/20: Action brought on 2 November 2020 — Jakober v EUIPO (Shape of a cup)
Date: 2020-11-02
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, glass, household article, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2020433EN.01006701.xml










14.12.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 433/67






Action brought on 2 November 2020 — Jakober v EUIPO (Shape of a cup)
(Case T-658/20)
(2020/C 433/83)
Language of the case: German

Parties


Applicant: Philip Jakober (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: J. Klink, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO


Trade mark at issue: Tridimensional EU trade mark (Shape of a cup) — Application for registration No 15 963 994

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 August 2020 in Case R 554/2020-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul the contested decision;










—


alter the contested decision so that his appeal is well-founded and, consequently, EU trade mark application No 15 963 994 be allowed to proceed to entry in the register of EUIPO;










—


order EUIPO to pay the costs.





Pleas in law







—


Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;










—


Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
Case C-568/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 2 November 2020 — J v H Limited
Date: 2020-11-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: claim, debt, enforcement of ruling, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial review








C_2021028EN.01002302.xml










25.1.2021   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 28/23






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 2 November 2020 — J v H Limited
(Case C-568/20)
(2021/C 28/37)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: J

Respondent: H Limited

Questions referred







1.


Are the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘Regulation No 1215/2012’) (1), in particular Article 2(a) and Article 39, to be interpreted as meaning that a judgment that is to be enforced exists even if, in a Member State, the judgment debtor is obliged, after summary examination in adversarial proceedings, albeit relating only to the binding nature of the force of res judicata of a judgment given against him in a third State, to pay to the party who was successful in the third State proceedings the debt that was judicially recognised in the third State, when the subject matter of the proceedings in the Member State was limited to examination of the existence of a claim derived from the judicially recognised debt against the judgment debtor?










2.


If question 1 is answered in the negative:
Are the provisions of Regulation No 1215/2012, in particular Articles 1, 2(a), 39, 45, 46 and 52, to be interpreted as meaning that, irrespective of the existence of one of the grounds set out in Article 45 of Regulation No 1215/2012, enforcement must be refused if the judgment under review is not a judgment within the meaning of Article 2(a) or Article 39 of Regulation No 1215/2012 or the application in the Member State of origin on which the judgment is based does not fall within the scope of Regulation No 1215/2012?










3.


If the first question is answered in the negative and the second question in the affirmative:
Are the provisions of Regulation No 1215/2012, in particular Articles 1, 2(a), 39, 42(1)(b), 46 and 53, to be interpreted as meaning that, in proceedings concerning an application for refusal of enforcement, the court of the Member State addressed is compelled to assume, on the basis solely of the information provided by the court of origin in the certificate issued pursuant to Article 53 of Regulation No 1215/2012, that a judgment that falls within the scope of the regulation and is to be enforced exists?






(1)  OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1.