2024-10-18 - LD Munich - SES-imagotag v. Hanshow - UPC_CFI_292/2023

Aktenzeichen:
UPC_CFI_292/2023
Datum:
Spruchkörper:
Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division
Art:
Application Order
Parteien:
SES-imagotag SA v. Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, Hanshow Germany GmbH, Hanshow France SAS, Hanshow Netherlands B.V.

Kernaussage: The Munich Local Division dismissed the Hanshow defendants' application to have the missed one-month deadline for seeking assessment of their appeal costs (R.

2024-10-18 - LD Munich - SES-imagotag v. Hanshow - UPC_CFI_292/2023
🗂️Nur Fallakte
Eine Entscheidung, mehrere Registereinträge

Das Gericht hat diese Verfahren zusammen entschieden und dasselbe Dokument in jedem davon eingestellt. Jeder Eintrag unten ist ein eigener vollwertiger Registereintrag.

  • UPC_CFI_292/2023 Text zuerst hier gespeichert
  • UPC_CFI_292/2023 (Sie lesen diesen hier)
🏛️Court of First Instance - Munich (DE) Local Division• Application Order
📅2024-10-18
🔢UPC_CFI_292/2023
Parteien & Vertreter
Kläger / Berufungsführer
SES-imagotag SA
Anton HORN
Beklagter / Berufungsbeklagter
Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd
Hanshow Germany GmbH
Hanshow France SAS
Hanshow Netherlands B.V.
Roland KÜPPERS
⚖️Provisional measures
🌐German
🤖🇬🇧

notable
The Munich Local Division dismissed the Hanshow defendants' application to have the missed one-month deadline for seeking assessment of their appeal costs (R. 151 RoP) retroactively extended under R. 9.3(a) RoP, and with it dismissed the cost-assessment application itself as inadmissible. The Court held — in a published Leitsatz — that re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP is, within its scope, lex specialis and displaces the general deadline-extension mechanism in R. 9.3(a) RoP. A party that has lost a right (here: cost reimbursement) as the direct consequence of a missed deadline must invoke R. 320 RoP and pay the associated fee under R. 320.2 RoP in accordance with R. 371 RoP. The applicants had neither filed a re-establishment request at the competent CFI (only at the CoA), nor paid the fee — so even the misdirected re-establishment request was deemed not filed (R. 15.2 RoP), with no re-establishment available for that failure (R. 320.5 RoP).

Inoffiziell

Entscheidung teilen

Weitere Navigation
Entscheidungen
Rechtstexte
Analysen

Zu Sammlung hinzufügen

0 Einträge hinzufügen zu:

Anmeldung

Registrieren