CELEX: 62015CN0175
Language: en
Date: 2015-04-20 00:00:00
Title: Case C-175/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 20 April 2015 — Taser International Inc. v SC Gate 4 Business SRL, Cristian Mircea Anastasiu

20.7.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 236/24
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție (Romania) lodged on 20 April 2015 — Taser International Inc. v SC Gate 4 Business SRL, Cristian Mircea Anastasiu
   (Case C-175/15)
   (2015/C 236/33)
   Language of the case: Romanian
   
      Referring court
   
   Înalta Curte de Casație și Justiție
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Taser International Inc.
   
      Defendant: SC Gate 4 Business SRL, Cristian Mircea Anastasiu
   
      Questions referred
   
   Must Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘jurisdiction derived from other provisions of this Regulation’ also covers the situation in which the parties to a contract for the assignment of rights to a trade mark registered in a Member State of the European Union have decided, unequivocally and undisputedly, to confer jurisdiction to settle any dispute regarding fulfilment of contractual obligations on the courts of a State which is not a Member State of the European Union and in which the applicant is domiciled (has its seat), while the applicant has seised a court of a Member State of the European Union in whose territory the defendant is domiciled (has its seat)?
   If the answer is in the affirmative:
   Must Article 23(5) of that regulation be interpreted as not referring to a clause conferring jurisdiction on a State that is not a Member State of the European Union, so that the court seised pursuant to Article 2 of the regulation will determine jurisdiction according to the rules of private international law in its own national legislation?
   Can a dispute relating to the enforcement, through the courts, of the obligation to assign rights to a trade mark registered in a Member State of the European Union, assumed under a contract between the parties to that dispute, be regarded as referring to a right ‘required to be deposited or registered’ within the meaning of Article 22(4) of the regulation, having regard to the fact that, under the law of the State in which the trade mark is registered, the assignment of rights to a trade mark must be entered in the Trade Mark Register and published in the Official Industrial Property Bulletin?
   If the answer is in the negative, does Article 24 of the regulation preclude a court seised pursuant to Article 2 of the regulation, in a situation such as that described in the above question, from declaring that it does not have jurisdiction to determine the case, even though the defendant has entered an appearance before that court, including in the final instance, without contesting jurisdiction?
   
      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.