Search for: "PAMMER"
Results 1 - 20
of 32
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 May 2023, 3:24 am
The court mentioned the following non-exhaustive list of indicia from the Pammer and Hotel Alpenhof judgment on Art. 17(1)(c) Brussels I Recast Regulation to be relevant in assessing whether activity is directed to a particular EU Member State: International nature of the activity; Use of a language or a currency other than the language or currency generally used in the EU Member State in which the business is established; Mention of telephone numbers with an international code; Paying an… [read post]
9 Dec 2021, 4:16 am
In this regard, the framework in Article 5 Rome Convention is a better solution, according to which package travel contracts can be expressly included in Article 17 Brussels Ibis/Article 6 Rome I as follows: Notwithstanding Article 17(3) Brussels Ibis/Article 6(4)(b) Rome I, this Section/article shall apply to a contract relating to package travel within the meaning of Council Directive 2015/2302/EU of 25 November 2015 on package travel and linked travel arrangements. [1] The predecessor of Articles… [read post]
31 Aug 2021, 4:31 am
Although this clarification is consistent with the Pammer, Mühlleitner, Emrek and Hobohm judgments, the Author endorses a new interpretation of the directed-activity criterion by the Court of Justice of the European Union which would protect consumers and, at the same time, provide greater legal certainty for traders. [read post]
11 Jun 2019, 1:25 pm
In this context, the rest of the facts of the case, i.e percentage of the rooms in relation to overall number of rooms of the hotel in question, the degree of power imbalance of the parties, the rest of the services involved (see for example Pammer case C-585/08) cannot be ignored. [1] De Lima Pinheiro, in Magnus/ Mankowski Brussels I Regulation 2nd ed. [read post]
29 Nov 2018, 2:03 am
These include Football Dataco v Sportradar GmbH & Sportradar AG, C-173/11, and Peter Pammer v Reederei Karl Sclüter GmbH & Co.KG, C-585/08. [read post]
28 Nov 2018, 6:50 am
The Guidelines reaffirm that the CJEU’s analysis in Pammer is helpful in interpreting the GDPR. [read post]
8 Nov 2018, 10:53 am
” TME’s website stated that when a trademark applicant submits an application directly to the USPTO, the applicant’s “email and phone number will be available for all to see,” including “[s]pammers, solicitors and anyone else,” but that, for a monthly fee of $5, TME would provide its email and phone number to the USPTO. [read post]
8 May 2018, 6:37 am
Lord Justice Kitchin ran through jurisprudence including the CJEU’s decisions in Pammer (2010), L'Oréal v eBay (2011), and Nintendo (September 2017) along with the German Supreme Court’s Parfummarken (November 2017). [read post]
7 Jan 2018, 11:30 pm
The court may decide that an advertisement is directed at the UK in light of some of the non-exhaustive list of matters referred to by the Court of Justice in Pammer at paragraph [93]. [read post]
19 Dec 2014, 12:35 am
The present judgment follows the decision of the Court of Justice of the European (CJEU) in Pammer, as regards the circumstances defining when the acts of communication are targeted at the public on a certain territory. [read post]
17 Nov 2014, 7:57 am
However, there is no mention of more recent stances (read: Pinckney, or the Opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalon in Pez Hejduk) in which the CJEU purportedly departed from this criterion, at least in the context of establishing jurisdiction].Birss J especially relied on the CJEU decision in Pammer to consider whether the defendants' activity was targeted at the UK. [read post]
22 Oct 2013, 5:57 am
In doing so, it also marked a discontinuity from recent case law (notably, Joined Cases C‑585/08 and C‑144/09 Peter Pammer, Case C-5/11 Titus Donner (Katpost here), and Case C-173/11 Sportradar (Katposts here and here) which employed the notion of ‘intention to target’ in the context of online infringements. [read post]
4 Oct 2013, 5:57 am
Article 5(3) lays down, as the sole condition, that a harmful event has occurred or may occur. 42 Thus, unlike Article 15(1)(c) of the Regulation, which was interpreted in Joined Cases C-585/08 and C-144/09 Pammer and Hotel Alpenhof [2010] ECR I-12527, Article 5(3) thereof does not require, in particular, that the activity concerned to be ‘directed to’ the Member State in which the court seised is situated.… [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 8:33 am
I produce a decision they made earlier: Pammer/Hotel Alpenhof. [read post]
14 Jun 2013, 7:51 am
We'll see whether the CJEU decides to follow AG Jääskinen's Opinion, although this Kat suspects that it is unlikely that it will depart significantly from it, especially after exciting judgments like Sportradar, Pammer and Donner. [read post]
21 Dec 2012, 3:10 am
The ECJ held first in Pammer & Hotel Alpenhof that Article 15 should be interpreted in a similar manner, regardless of whether a consumer contract was concluded online. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 1:34 am
The ECJ refers to the case law it developed in trade mark law (case C-324/09 L’Oréal and Others, para. 64, but also joined cases C-585/08 and C-144/09 Pammer and Hotel Alpenhof, para. 69) to rule that the localisation of an act of re-utilisation depends on there being evidence that the act of re-utilisation discloses an intention to target persons in that territory. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 1:34 am
The ECJ refers to the case law it developed in trade mark law (case C-324/09 L’Oréal and Others, para. 64, but also joined cases C-585/08 and C-144/09 Pammer and Hotel Alpenhof, para. 69) to rule that the localisation of an act of re-utilisation depends on there being evidence that the act of re-utilisation discloses an intention to target persons in that territory. [read post]
27 Sep 2012, 2:39 pm
However, in the light of the ECJ’s Pammer and Alpenhof judgment in 2010 (in particular par. 86), the Austrian judges wanted to now whether only contracts concluded at a distance, and not on the spot, would fall within the scope of Article 15 (1) (c). [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 2:13 pm
Neither the history of the provision, nor its purpose nor the decision of the ECJ in Pammer and Alpenhof required that the contract be concluded at a distance. [read post]
