Inditex oor Fins
Inditex
Vertalings in die woordeboek Engels - Fins
Inditex
Geskatte vertalings
Vertoon algoritmies gegenereerde vertalings
voorbeelde
Advanced filtering
Voorbeelde moet herlaai word.
By the fourth ground of appeal Inditex submits that the General Court erred in law in the application of Article 51(1)(a) CTMR in that it infringed, in paragraph 35 of the judgment under appeal, the rules according to which the assessment of whether the use of a mark is genuine must take into consideration all of the relevant facts and circumstances in order to determine the reality of its commercial exploitation.
Hän jäi pois bussista ja käveli tien yliEurLex-2 EurLex-2
Action brought on 25 September 2017 — Inditex v EUIPO — Ansell (ZARA TANZANIA ADVENTURES)
Itse asiassa lähes koko kakkososasto on lähdössä K- paxiineurlex-diff-2018-06-20 eurlex-diff-2018-06-20
Case T-#/#: Action brought on # July #- Inditex v OHIM
Asetuksen (EY) N:o #/# # artikla ei riitä turvaamaan, että silli- ja silakkasaaliit noudattaisivat kyseisten lajien osalta vahvistettuja saalisrajoituksiaoj4 oj4
Other organisations mention cost considerations, stating, in particular, that the use of the same operating system to supply work group services allows a reduction in administration costs (see, inter alia, the responses of entity I 49-19 and Inditex).
Se on # metrin säteelläEurLex-2 EurLex-2
Penney, Manifattura Corona, NKD, PWT or YesZee, have yet to pay into the Trust Fund; deeply regrets the fact that after months of stalling, Benetton has only granted USD 1.1 million to the Rana Plaza Donor Trust Fund, despite the necessary contribution being estimated to be much higher on the basis of its ability to pay and given the extent of its involvement with Rana Plaza; similarly regrets that every brand linked to Rana Plaza has made insufficient donations, thus failing to live up to their responsibilities to the victims, including Mango, Matalan, and Inditex, who have refused to disclose their donations, with others such as Walmart and The Children’s Place only contributing a minimal amount;
Siinä on vain # # koodiyhdistelmäänot-set not-set
The subject matter of the action before the Board of Appeal was limited to determining whether or not Inditex’s use of the trade mark ZARA for the services of transport and product distribution provided by that company to its franchisees could be regarded as external use, as opposed to internal use within the company, and, consequently, whether or not it could be regarded as genuine use.
Tämä on enoni paikkaEurLex-2 EurLex-2
According to Inditex, that assessment is incorrect because it is inconsistent with the law.
Jos se on sinusta tärkeämpi, et kuulu joukkoonEurLex-2 EurLex-2
By its appeal, which comprises six grounds of appeal, Inditex contests the grounds set out in paragraphs 32 to 37 of the judgment under appeal.
Se potkaisi kuin muuliEurLex-2 EurLex-2
error of law by the Board of Appeal in regarding the franchisees of Inditex as integral entities of the internal organisation of the company when, in fact, they are legal entities independent of the Inditex Group;
Ette jatka edemmäsEurLex-2 EurLex-2
According to Inditex, the General Court’s position is incorrect and infringes EU law and case-law as cited in the ground of appeal.
Useita vastaajiaEurLex-2 EurLex-2
Applicant: Industria de Diseño Textil (Inditex) (Arteixo, Spain) (represented by: C.
Tajuatko mitä sanon?EurLex-2 EurLex-2
Applicant: Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) (Arteixo, Spain) (represented by: G.
Pyydän!Ei puhuta siitäeurlex-diff-2018-06-20 eurlex-diff-2018-06-20
Case T-#/#: Judgment of the General Court of # September #- Inditex v OHIM- Marín Díaz de Cerio (OFTEN) (Community trade mark- Opposition proceedings- Application for the Community word mark OFTEN- Earlier national word mark OLTEN- Relative ground for refusal- Likelihood of confusion- Similarity of the signs- Similarity of the goods- Article #(b) of Regulation (EC) No #/# (now Article #(b) of Regulation (EC) No #/#)- Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark- Article # and of Regulation No #/# (now Article # and of Regulation No #/#)- Subject-matter of the dispute before the Board of Appeal- Articles # and # of Regulation No #/# (now Articles # and # of Regulation No
Ehkä tuolla vaaleallaoj4 oj4
Applicant: Industria de Diseño Textil, SA (Inditex) (Arteixo, Spain) (represented by: G.
Haluat varmasti tavata hänetEurlex2018q4 Eurlex2018q4
Case T-269/18: Judgment of the General Court of 8 May 2019 — Inditex v EUIPO — Ffauf Italia (ZARA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ZARA — Earlier national word and figurative marks LE DELIZIE ZARA and ZARA — Proof of genuine use of the earlier marks — Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 — Article 18(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 — Obligation to state reasons)
Ainut ihailijaniEurlex2019 Eurlex2019
Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 February 2018 (Joined Cases R 359/2015-5 and R 409/2015-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Ffauf Italia and Inditex.
Vuoden # toisella puoliskolla tiedemaailmaa kannustetaan osallistumaan kansainvälistä jalokaasukokeilua INGEa koskevaan työpajaan, jossa tiedemaailman ajatukset asiasta kootaan yhteen ja niistä keskustellaanEurlex2019 Eurlex2019
Action brought on 23 July 2008 — Inditex v OHIM
Pappi, sinä ja edeltäjäsi olette palvelleet meitä hyvinEurLex-2 EurLex-2
By the third ground of appeal, Inditex submits that the General Court, in paragraph 33 of the judgment under appeal, distorted the terms of the sworn declaration of 7 May 2012 of Mr Antonio Abril (Annex 4 to the appeal), by partially transcribing part of the declarations actually made by the latter, which led the General Court to interpret that document incorrectly and affected the General Court’s conclusion as regards the external use of the trade mark ZARA.
yksivaiheinen tyyppihyväksyntäEurLex-2 EurLex-2
Thus, where, as in the present case, the Opposition Division concludes that proof of genuine use of the earlier mark has been provided and, accordingly, upholds the opposition, the Board of Appeal can examine the question of that proof only if the applicant for the mark raises it specifically in its appeal before that Board (see, to that effect, Case T‐292/08 Inditex v OHMI – Marín Díaz de Cerio (OFTEN) [2010] ECR II‐0000, paragraphs 33, 39 and 40).
Tietenkin se on mahdollistaEurLex-2 EurLex-2
Lastly, the sixth ground of appeal alleges an error of law resulting from the infringement of Article 51(1)(a) CTMR, in conjunction with Rule 22 of Regulation No 2868/1995, (2) in that, in paragraph 36 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court required Inditex to produce a probatio diabolica by denying that evidence on the turnover had been submitted to it because no invoices had been produced, despite the fact that the General Court was aware that Inditex could not produce such invoices since no such documents existed for the reasons set out in the ground of appeal.
Keittiö selväEurLex-2 EurLex-2
Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Inditex v EUIPO — Ffauf (ZARA)
komission suorittamien maksujen vastaanottaminen ja varojen maksaminen lopullisille tuensaajilleeurlex-diff-2018-06-20 eurlex-diff-2018-06-20
having regard to the cooperation agreement signed on 25 April 2016 by the President of Inditex, Pablo Isla, and the Secretary-General of IndustriALL Global Union, Jyrki Raina, on responsible management of the supply chain in the garment sector,
Neuvoston on vahvistettava tämän sopimuksen voimassaolon päättyminen vähintään kuusi vuotta etukäteen sekä päätettävä deaktivointivaiheeseen ja ITER-organisaation purkamiseen liittyvistä järjestelyistäEurlex2018q4 Eurlex2018q4
1 On 5 August 2002, the applicant, Industria de Diseño Textil (Inditex), SA, filed an application for registration of a Community trade mark at the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), under Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), as amended (replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)).
ehdottaa, että perustetaan EU:n tason selvitysjärjestelmä, jonka tavoitteena on kerätä ja arvioida kaikkien HIV/aidsin vastaisessa taistelussa toimivien instituutioiden ja järjestöjen parhaita käytäntöjä; katsoo, että kyseinen järjestelmä voisi edistää puutteiden havainnointia nykyisissä toimissa ja että sillä voitaisiin laatia uusia strategioitaEurLex-2 EurLex-2
57 sinne gevind in 9 ms. Hulle kom uit baie bronne en word nie nagegaan nie.