CELEX: 62015CA0617
Language: en
Date: 2017-05-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-617/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Hummel Holding A/S v Nike Inc., Nike Retail BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — EU trade mark — Article 97(1) — International jurisdiction — Action for infringement brought against an undertaking with its seat in a third country — Second-tier subsidiary with its seat in the Member State of the court seised — Definition of ‘establishment’)

24.7.2017   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 239/6
            
         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Hummel Holding A/S v Nike Inc., Nike Retail BV
   (Case C-617/15) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - EU trade mark - Article 97(1) - International jurisdiction - Action for infringement brought against an undertaking with its seat in a third country - Second-tier subsidiary with its seat in the Member State of the court seised - Definition of ‘establishment’))
   (2017/C 239/08)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Hummel Holding A/S
   
      Defendant: Nike Inc., Nike Retail BV
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   Article 97(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the European Union trade mark must be interpreted as meaning that a legally distinct second-tier subsidiary, with its seat in a Member State, of a parent body that has no seat in the European Union is an ‘establishment’, within the meaning of that provision, of that parent body if the subsidiary is a centre of operations which, in the Member State where it is located, has a certain real and stable presence from which commercial activity is pursued, and has the appearance of permanency to the outside world, such as an extension of the parent body.
   
      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.