Volltextveröffentlichung

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Papierfundstellen

• RGSt 36, 178

Wird zitiert von ... (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• BGH, 14.12.1999 - X ZR 61/98

  Karate; Erschöpfung der Rechte aus einem Patent

  Den Grundsatz der nationalen Erschöpfung hat bereits das Reichsgericht vertreten (RGZ 51, 263, 266 f. - Mariani; RGSt 36, 178, 179 = BlPMZ 1904, 36, 37 - Schnürlochösen; RGZ 84, 370, 375 - Kühler).
• EGMR, 23.03.2006 - 75025/01

  ALEKSENTSEVA and 28 Others v. RUSSIA

  75025/01, 75026/01, 75027/01, 75028/01, 75029/01, 75030/01, 75031/01, 75032/01, 75033/01, 75034/01, 75035/01, 75036/01, 75037/01, 75038/01, 75136/01, 76386/01, 76542/01, 76736/01, 77049/01, 77051/01, 77052/01, 77053/01, 3999/02, 5314/02, 5384/02, 5388/02, 5419/02, 8190/02 and 8192/02 by ALEKSENTSEVA and 28 Others[*] against Russia.

  3999/02.

• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 75025/01

  ALEKSENTSEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  (Applications nos. 75025/01, 75026/01, 75028/01, 75029/01, 75031/01, 75033/01, 75034/01, 75036/01, 76386/01, 77049/01, 77051/01, 77052/01, 77053/01, 3999/02, 5314/02, 5384/02, 5388/02, 5419/02, and 8192/02).

  The case originated in thirty applications (nos. 75025/01, 75026/01, 75027/01, 75028/01, 75029/01, 75030/01, 75031/01, 75032/01, 75033/01, 75034/01, 75035/01, 75036/01, 75037/01, 75038/01, 75136/01, 76386/01, 76542/01, 76736/01, 76737/01, 77049/01, 77051/01, 77052/01, 77053/01, 3999/02, 5314/02, 5384/02, 5388/02, 5419/02, 8190/02, 8192/02) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") by thirty Russian nationals ("the applicants").

• EGMR, 05.07.2016 - 44898/10

  JERONOVICS v. LATVIA

  In the case of Aleksentseva and Others v. Russia (nos. 75025/01, 75026/01, 75028/01, 75029/01, 75031/01, 75033/01, 75034/01, 75036/01, 76386/01, 77049/01, 77051/01, 77052/01, 77053/01, 3999/02, 5314/02, 5384/02, 5388/02, 5419/02 and 8192/02, decisions of 4 September 2003, 23 March 2006, and judgment of 17 January 2008, §§ 14-17), the Court decided to restore the applicants' case to its list on the grounds that the Government's unilateral declaration, which had been accepted by the Court in its strike-out decision of 4 September 2003, was conditional, in that its implementation, that is to say, the payment of compensation, was subject to the withdrawal of the applications.
• OLG Stuttgart, 15.08.1997 - 2 U 116/97

  Markenrechtsverletzung durch den Vertrieb von Bohrhämmern in deutschen …

  Kontextvorschau leider nicht verfügbar
• EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 83275/17

  CALLEJA v. MALTA

  However, the Court has rarely restored a case to its list of cases following a strike-out decision made in the light of a unilateral declaration (see, as one example, Aleksentseva and Others v. Russia (nos. 75025/01, 75026/01, 75028/01, 75029/01, 75031/01, 75033/01, 75034/01, 75036/01, 76386/01, 77049/01, 77051/01, 77052/01, 77053/01, 3999/02, 5314/02, 5384/02, 5388/02, 5419/02 and 8192/02, decisions of 4 September 2003, 23 March 2006, and judgment of 17 January 2008, §§ 14-17).
• EGMR, 27.09.2007 - 538/02

  GUERMOUD c. FRANCE

  Pour autant, l'application des alinéas b) et c) de l'article 37 § 1 n'est pas conditionnée au consentement du requérant (voir Akman c. Turquie (radiation), no 37453/97, CEDH 2001-VI ; voir également, Aleksentseva et 28 autres c. Russie (radiation), nos 75025/01 à 75038/01, 75136/01, 76386/01, 76542/01, 76736/01, 77049/01, 77051/01 à 77053/01, 3999/02, 5314/02, 5384/02, 5388/02, 5419/02, 8190/02 et 8192/02, 4 septembre 2003).