.. is combined, you can escape to the bar the claim of the principal itself perhaps the fact that his mistake can not be poured in, Shape, but the withdrawal of the request for an interim injunction at the hearing, "because the court has indicated, that reject the application would.
why the matter would be unsuccessful, is where an application for withdrawal of course nowhere and that's a lot for your colleagues. The Landgericht Braunschweig had already in advance a notice to refute the urgency for a second transfer request, where fast-track but the appointment fee would be the colleague probably not be missed. Thank you.
He will now know that under § 5 of the Regulation governing powers in the judiciary and the administration of justice ( ZustVO Justice ) of 18 December 2009 Niedesachsen in the District Court of Braunschweig for districts of all district courts for the Patents, utility models, topography protection, the design, the Community design, the Trademarks, Community Trademarks and the Plant Variety Protection disputes, the disputes relating to Community plant variety protection and disputes relating to the Protection of the Olympic emblem and Olympic titles is responsible - not the district court of Hannover .
A decision would have involved, therefore, perhaps the following:
Despite those resulting from invocation of the wrong court delay the plaintiff requested a transfer of that date means which the court by assignment on 01/18/2011 and granted. While the Defendant after the warning only 5 days left to submit srafbewehrten desist were left, then a further delay seems unacceptable for 6 days.
Finally, the applicant requested, despite the invocation of the wrong caused by court delays and the postponement caused by the first delay, a further transfer of the scheduled hearing date, which was by the court by assignment on the 01/26/2011 but was granted. Another 8 days elapsed without the allegedly important Eilrechtsschutz.
This has indicated the plaintiff by its own procedural behavior him that the matter at any rate at present is not urgent, so urgent that the presumption of § 12 para 2 UWG be regarded as refuted.
was similar to the already OLG Hamm, Judgement of 30.06.2009 with the file number: 4 U 74/09 expressed with only one transfer request, or without any delays. provide two transfer requests for referral to the wrong court in a disposal method, however, are a shimmering jewel lawyer's craft, the well must also issue in future no judge in his written vote in Germany.
399e16cb3e0f46acbcf4115bbc1a48ef 
0 comments:
Post a Comment