21 January, 2022 – Page 2 – www.zdss.si

Prikaz vseh zadetkov portala ZDSS.....

CELEX:62020TJ0551: Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 24 November 2021.#Jeronimo Martins Polska S.A. v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark Riviva – Earlier EU word mark RIVELLA – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Partial rejection of the application for registration – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) of Regulation 2017/1001).#Case T-551/20.

21 January, 2022 No Comments

CELEX:62020TJ0658: Judgment of the General Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 November 2021.#Philip Jakober v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Case T-658/20.

21 January, 2022 No Comments

CELEX:62020TJ0434: Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 24 November 2021.#Piotr Włodarczyk v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – EU figurative mark dziandruk – Absolute ground for invalidity – Absence of bad faith – Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 59(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001).#Case T-434/20.

21 January, 2022 No Comments

CELEX:62020TO0079: Order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 July 2021.#AI v European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.#Action for annulment and for damages – Civil service – ECDC staff – Psychological harassment – Article 12a of the Staff Regulations – Damage to reputation – Request for assistance – Article 24 of the Staff Regulations – Dismissal of application – Right to be heard – Absence of prima facie evidence – Duty of care – Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.#Case T-79/20.

21 January, 2022 No Comments

CELEX:62020TJ0012: Judgment of the General Court (Single Judge) of 13 October 2021.#Markus Schneider v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark – Revocation proceedings – EU figurative trade mark Frutaria – Genuine use of the trade mark – Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) – Proof of genuine use – Nature of use.#Case T-12/20.

21 January, 2022 No Comments

CELEX:62020TJ0542: Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2021.#Stada Arzneimittel AG v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the EU word mark RUXIMBLIS – Earlier EU word mark RUXIMERA – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001.#Case T-542/20.

21 January, 2022 No Comments

CELEX:62019TJ0298: Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 November 2021.#Think Schuhwerk GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office.#Case T-298/19.

21 January, 2022 No Comments

CELEX:62016TJ0191: Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 20 October 2021.#Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro AE v European Commission.#Case T-191/16.

21 January, 2022 No Comments

CELEX:62019CJ0594: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 January 2022.#Deutsche Lufthansa AG v European Commission.#Case C-594/19 P.

21 January, 2022 No Comments

sodba I U 734/2010

21 January, 2022 No Comments

Zavarovalne premije, ki jih delodajalec plača v korist delavca, predstavljajo boniteto, ne glede na to, ali delavec takrat že pridobi pravico iz naslova zavarovanja ali ne.

Pravilno je stališče tožene stranke, da na pravilnost in zakonitost izpodbijane odločbe dejstva, ki nastanejo po letu, na katero se nanaša odmera (razveljavitev zavarovalne pogodbe in vrnitev zavarovalnih premij delodajalcu), ne morejo vplivati. Vendar pa je, skladno s stališčem revizijskega sodišča, v obravnavanem primeru treba upoštevati, da gre za obnovo odmere dohodnine za leto 1996, začeto v letu 1998 in torej po tem, ko je do razveljavitve zavarovalne pogodbe in vrnitve premij že prišlo, in je zato nesmiselno, da bi se v postopku obnove navedena dejstva, ki bi jih tožnik sicer lahko uveljavljal na podlagi 126. člena ZDavP, na njegov ugovor ne upoštevala že v obnovljenem postopku odmere dohodnine.

Želite prejemati novice o davkih ?

Naroči se na novice ZDSS (informacije iz sodišč, FURS, ZDSS….). Novice boste prejemali 3 x tedensko

Kdaj portal www.zdss.si pošilja obvestila?

Glej Tehnična opis delovanja spletne strani.