387 results found

On 6 July 2017 the Court of Justice of the EU delivered a judgment clarifying two issues arising in connection with the provisions relating to air fares in EU Regulation 1008/2008 ...

On March 12, 2025, the European General Court (Second Chamber) delivered a significant judgment in Case T-66/24 between Lidl Vertriebs GmbH & Co. KG ("Lidl") and EUIPO/Liquidleds Lighting Corp.

On 24 June 2016, the long-awaited decision on ad blocking software was adopted by the Higher Regional Court of Cologne.

Criminal justice and public prosecution offices are also impacted by the protective measures taken nationwide to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Eine fehlende Telefonnummer in der Widerrufsbeleh- rung, eine falsche Bezeichnung des Bestellbuttons: Was nach Kleinigkeiten klingt, kann Unternehmen in kostspielige Gerichtsverfahren treiben.

On October 17, 2018, the German Federal Supreme Court dismissed an appeal (Case I ZR 28/18) brought by Bigben Interactive GmbH and Bigben Interactive S.A.

Requests for increased security for costs are treated as modifications of existing orders, requiring analysis under Rule 158 RoP.

Whether a particular person may be granted full access under this provision must be determined on the basis of the relevant circumstances of the case...

It is necessary to distinguish between the assessment of urgency in the context of an application for preserving evidence (R. 194.2(a) RoP)...

The CoA partially overturned a broad evidence production order of the LD Copenhagen and clarified the limits on the scope. The Court of First Instance had ordered Appellant to produce, subject to a penalty payment of up to EUR 1,000 per day of delay, complete construction drawings, manuals and “other materials” provided to customers. Appellant appealed, raising five grounds: disproportionality, lack of evidentiary necessity for process features, fishing expedition / pre-emptive remedies, self-incrimination, and insufficient confidentiality measures.

This interpretation of Art. 70(2) UPCA and R. 371 RoP ensures that the lodging party has control and can easily verify the timely payment. In view of R. 371.2 RoP which requires proof of payment...

The Court of Appeal confirmed that suspensive effect is an exception to the general rule.

Pursuant to Article 74(1) UPCA, an appeal does not have suspensive effect unless the Court of Appeal decides otherwise upon a reasoned request by a party.

Foreseeable professional commitments and school holidays do not amount to “exceptional circumstances” under R. 9.3(a) RoP

The Court of Appeal may decide to disregard late filed requests, facts and evidence even if these were not objected by the other party (Rule 222.2 RoP).

Continuation of IP Report of August 24, 2017 (German Federal Court of Justice on financial compensation of co-authorized persons with regard to patents (BGH, "Sektionaltor II" judgment of May 16, 2017 – Case X ZR 85/14))

Requirements for requesting cost security based on undue burden of enforcement in a foreign jurisdiction

Extensions are granted only in justified exceptional circumstances to ensure efficient proceedings.