Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 23/2017-9 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2017:III.DOR.23.2017.9 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses review application as statutory conditions for review under ZPP are not met.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 23/2017-9
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia rejected the applicant's request for a review of the trademark cancellation decision. The lower courts ruled to remove a specific mark from the register and ordered the defendant to cease using the conflicting sign. The review application was dismissed because the applicant failed to satisfy the strict statutory requirements for granting a review under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

367.a ZPP; 367.c ZPP: A review application is inadmissible if the applicant fails to demonstrate that the lower court's decision violates the law or is otherwise reviewable under the specific conditions set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure.

Keywords

AI generated
review application ZPP conditions trademark cancellation inadmissible review Supreme Court civil procedure statutory requirements

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367.a ZPP
367.c ZPP
AI generated
VSL Sodba V Cpg 1037/2017
Appeal dismissed; bad faith proven; procedural inconsistencies rejected as mere evidentiary evaluation errors.
VSRS Sklep I Up 62/2017
Supreme Court revokes first-instance ruling on late appeal due to improper service of administrative decision.
VSRS Sodba III Ips 14/2017
Supreme Court allows pledgee to sue for trademark erasure, ruling they are equally entitled to protection under Property Law.
VSL Sodba V Cpg 33/2018
Appeal court dismisses trademark cancellation request for 'ROSMELA' due to low distinctiveness in pharmaceuticals.
Sodba III Ips 225/2008
Supreme Court dismisses appeal; author retains copyright after bankruptcy transfer fails to include consent for trademark registration.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Predlog se zavrne.

[JEDRO]

Ker niso izpolnjeni pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz 367.a člena ZPP, je Vrhovno sodišče na podlagi drugega odstavka 367.c člena ZPP predlog tožeče stranke zavrnilo.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je razsodilo, da se zavrne tožbeni zahtevek, po katerem se znamka tožencev z registrsko št. 2008710184 izbriše iz registra znamk in sta dolžna toženca v roku 15 dneh prenehati uporabljati znak, registriran z blagovno znamko (grafična podoba z napisom „povračilo“) (I. točka izreka). Odločilo je o stroških postopka (II. točka izreka).

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbo tožeče stranke zavrnilo in potrdilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje (I. točka izreka). Odločilo je povračilu stroškov pritožbenega postopka (II. in III. točka izreka).

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje je tožeča stranka vložila predlog za dopustitev revizije.

4. Ker niso izpolnjeni pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZPP), je Vrhovno sodišče na podlagi drugega odstavka 367.c člena ZPP predlog tožeče stranke zavrnilo.