Urteile chronologisch

Europäischer Gerichtshof, Beschluss v. 13.09.2001 - Az.: 3 C 467/00 P
EuGH_en, Beschluss v. 13.09.2001 - Az.: C-467/00: Leitsatz:
1. It is clear from Article 36.2 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank that the Community judicature is to have jurisdiction in disputes between the European Central Bank and its servants within the limits and under the conditions laid down in the conditions of employment applicable to the servants of the European Central Bank. The conditions for bringing an action before the Community judicature, which are laid down in Article 42 of the Conditions of Employment and amplified in Article 8.2 of the Staff Rules, require, in particular, that actions be brought within two months.
( see paras 15-16 )
2. A plea in law put forward for the first time in the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice must be rejected as inadmissible. To allow a party to put forward for the first time before the Court of Justice a plea in law which it has not raised before the Court of First Instance would be to allow it to bring before the Court a case of wider ambit than that which came before the Court of First Instance. In an appeal the Court?s jurisdiction is confined to review of the findings of the Court of First Instance on the pleas argued before it.
( see paras 22-23 )
3. It is clear from Article 225 EC and Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice that an appeal is to be limited to points of law. Accordingly, the Court of First Instance has sole jurisdiction to find and appraise the facts, except in a case where the factual inaccuracy of its findings is revealed by the evidence adduced before it. The appraisal of the facts does not constitute, save where the clear sense of the evidence produced before it is distorted, a question of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice.
( see para. 26 )
Europäischer Gerichtshof , Beschluss v. 13.09.2001 - Az.: 3 C 467/00 P
EuGH_en , Beschluss v. 13.09.2001 - Az.: C-467/00: Leitsatz:
1. It is clear from Article 36.2 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank that the Community judicature is to have jurisdiction in disputes between the European Central Bank and its servants within the limits and under the conditions laid down in the conditions of employment applicable to the servants of the European Central Bank. The conditions for bringing an action before the Community judicature, which are laid down in Article 42 of the Conditions of Employment and amplified in Article 8.2 of the Staff Rules, require, in particular, that actions be brought within two months.
( see paras 15-16 )
2. A plea in law put forward for the first time in the appeal proceedings before the Court of Justice must be rejected as inadmissible. To allow a party to put forward for the first time before the Court of Justice a plea in law which it has not raised before the Court of First Instance would be to allow it to bring before the Court a case of wider ambit than that which came before the Court of First Instance. In an appeal the Court?s jurisdiction is confined to review of the findings of the Court of First Instance on the pleas argued before it.
( see paras 22-23 )
3. It is clear from Article 225 EC and Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice that an appeal is to be limited to points of law. Accordingly, the Court of First Instance has sole jurisdiction to find and appraise the facts, except in a case where the factual inaccuracy of its findings is revealed by the evidence adduced before it. The appraisal of the facts does not constitute, save where the clear sense of the evidence produced before it is distorted, a question of law which is subject, as such, to review by the Court of Justice.
( see para. 26 )
Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe, Urteil v. 12.09.2001 - Az.: 6 U 13/01
Landgericht Hannover, Urteil v. 12.09.2001 - Az.: 7 O 349/01 (18)
Landgericht Hannover, Urteil v. 12.09.2001 - Az.: 7 O 349/01 (18)
Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe, Urteil v. 12.09.2001 - Az.: 6 U 13/01: Leitsatz:
1. Die bloße Registrierung einer Domain ohne Bezug zu einem Produkt oder Gewerbe zum alleinigen Zweck der Freihaltung der Domain für einen Internetauftritt eines Kunden stellt noch keine kennzeichenrechtliche Benutzung dar. Da die Internet-Domain als solche nicht als das verwechslungsfähige Produkt angesehen werden kann, fehlt es an einer markenrechtlich relevanten Produktkollision.
2. Eine sittenwidrige Behinderung ist in einem solchen Falle nur dann gegeben, wenn die Reservierung des Domain-Namens ausschließlich in der Absicht erfolgt, die Domain für einen Konkurrenten zu "sperren".
Oberlandesgericht Koeln, Urteil v. 07.09.2001 - Az.: 6 U 186/00
Oberlandesgericht Koeln_1, Urteil v. 07.09.2001 - Az.: 6 U 185/00