CELEX: 62016CA0341
Language: en
Date: 2017-10-05 00:00:00
Title: Case C-341/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Hanssen Beleggingen BV v Tanja Prast-Knipping (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction — Article 2(1) — Jurisdiction of the courts of the place where the defendant is domiciled — Article 22(4) — Exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of intellectual property rights — Proceedings to determine whether a person was correctly registered as the proprietor of a trade mark)

27.11.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 402/6
            
         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 October 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Hanssen Beleggingen BV v Tanja Prast-Knipping
   (Case C-341/16) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction - Article 2(1) - Jurisdiction of the courts of the place where the defendant is domiciled - Article 22(4) - Exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of intellectual property rights - Proceedings to determine whether a person was correctly registered as the proprietor of a trade mark))
   (2017/C 402/07)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Hanssen Beleggingen BV
   
      Defendant: Tanja Prast-Knipping
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   Article 22(4) 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 must be interpreted as not applying to proceedings to determine whether a person was correctly registered as the proprietor of a trade mark.
   
      (1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.