Besonderhede van voorbeeld: 1394346602378275261

Bulgarian

4 Общият съд вече се е произнесъл, макар и непряко, по въпроса, поставен по настоящото дело, в решенията от 6 септември 2006 г., DEF-TEC Defense Technology/СХВП — Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐6/05, EU:T:2006:241), от 13 април 2011 г., Safariland/СХВП — DEF-TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐262/09, EU:T:2011:171), и от 29 ноември 2012 г., Adamowski/СХВП-Fagumit (FAGUMIT) (T‐537/10 и T‐538/10, EU:T:2012:634).

Czech

4 Tribunál již rozhodl, i když pouze nepřímo, o otázce nastolené v projednávané věci v rozsudcích ze dne 6. září 2006, DEF-TEC Defense Technology v. OHIM – Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐6/05, EU:T:2006:241), ze dne 13. dubna 2011, Safariland v. OHIM – DEF-TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐262/09, EU:T:2011:171) a ze dne 29. listopadu 2012, Adamowski v. OHIM-Fagumit (FAGUMIT) (T‐537/10 a T‐538/10, EU:T:2012:634).

Danish

4 – Retten udtalte sig, om end kun indirekte, om det foreliggende spørgsmål i dom af 6.9.2006, DEF-TEC Defense Technology mod KHIM – Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T-6/05, EU:T:2006:241), af 13.4.2011, Safariland mod KHIM – DEF-TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T-262/09, EU:T:2011:171), og af 29.11.2012, Adamowski mod KHIM – Fagumit (FAGUMIT) (T-537/10 og T-538/10, EU:T:2012:634).

German

4 Das Gericht hat sich hierzu – wenn auch nur indirekt – in den Urteilen vom 6. September 2006, DEF-TEC Defense Technology/HABM – Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T-6/05, EU:T:2006:241), vom 13. April 2011, Safariland/HABM – DEF-TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐262/09, EU:T:2011:171), und vom 29. November 2012, Adamowski/HABM – Fagumit (FAGUMIT) (T-537/10 und T-538/10, EU:T:2012:634), geäußert.

Greek

4 Το Γενικό Δικαστήριο έχει ήδη αποφανθεί σχετικά με το ζήτημα που ανέκυψε εν προκειμένω, καίτοι μόνον εμμέσως, με τις αποφάσεις της 6ης Σεπτεμβρίου 2006, DEF-TEC Defense Technology κατά ΓΕΕΑ–Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐6/05, EU:T:2006:241), της 13ης Απριλίου 2011, Safariland κατά ΓΕΕΑ – DEF-TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐262/09, EU:T:2011:171), και της 29ης Νοεμβρίου 2012, Adamowski κατά ΓΕΕΑ-Fagumit (FAGUMIT) (T‐537/10 και T‐538/10, EU:T:2012:634).

English

4 The General Court has already ruled, albeit only indirectly, on the issue raised in the present case in its judgments of 6 September 2006, DEF-TEC Defense Technology v OHIM — Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐6/05, EU:T:2006:241), of 13 April 2011, Safariland v OHIM — DEF-TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐262/09, EU:T:2011:171), and of 29 November 2012, Adamowski v OHIM — Fagumit (FAGUMIT) (T‐537/10 and T‐538/10, EU:T:2012:634).

Spanish

4 El Tribunal General ya se ha pronunciado, si bien de forma indirecta, sobre la cuestión que se plantea en el presente asunto en las sentencias de 6 de septiembre de 2006, DEF-TEC Defense Technology/OAMI-Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐6/05, EU:T:2006:241); de 13 de abril de 2011, Safariland/OAMI — DEF-TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐262/09, EU:T:2011:171), y de 29 de noviembre de 2012, Adamowski/OAMI-Fagumit (FAGUMIT) (T‐537/10 y T‐538/10, EU:T:2012:634).

Estonian

4 Üldkohus on seevastu juba käesolevas kohtuasjas tõstatatud küsimuses otsuse teinud, kuigi ainult kaudselt, 6. septembri 2006. aasta kohtuotsuses DEF-TEC Defense Technology vs. Siseturu Ühtlustamise Amet – Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐6/05, EU:T:2006:241), 13. aprilli 2011. aasta kohtuotsuses Safariland vs. Siseturu Ühtlustamise Amet – DEF-TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐262/09, EU:T:2011:171) ja 29. novembri 2012. aasta kohtuotsuses Adamowski vs. Siseturu Ühtlustamise Amet – Fagumit (FAGUMIT) (T‐537/10 ja T‐538/10, EU:T:2012:634).

Finnish

4 Unionin yleinen tuomioistuin on jo ottanut kantaa nyt tarkasteltavassa asiassa esitettyyn kysymykseen, joskin vain välillisesti, 6.9.2006 antamassaan tuomiossa DEF-TEC Defense Technology v. SMHV – Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐6/05, EU:T:2006:241), 13.4.2011 antamassaan tuomiossa Safariland v. SMHV – DEF-TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐262/09, EU:T:2011:171) ja 29.11.2012 antamassaan tuomiossa Adamowski v. SMHV – Fagumit (FAGUMIT) (T‐537/10 ja T‐538/10, EU:T:2012:634).

French

4 Le Tribunal s’est déjà prononcé, bien qu’indirectement, sur la question soulevée dans la présente affaire dans les arrêts du 6 septembre 2006, DEF-TEC Defense Technology/OHMI – Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐6/05, EU:T:2006:241), du 13 avril 2011, Safariland/OHMI – DEF-TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐262/09, EU:T:2011:171), et du 29 novembre 2012, Adamowski/OHMI–Fagumit (FAGUMIT) (T‐537/10 et T‐538/10, EU:T:2012:634).

Croatian

4 Opći sud je već presudio, iako samo neizravno, u pitanju koje je postavljeno u ovome predmetu u presudama od 6. rujna 2006., DEF-TEC Defense Technology/UAMI–Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐6/05, EU:T:2006:241), od 13. travnja 2011., Safariland/UAMI – DEF-TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐262/09, EU:T:2011:171) i od 29. studenoga 2012., Adamowski/UAMI-Fagumit (FAGUMIT) (T‐537/10 i T‐538/10, EU:T:2012:634).

Hungarian

4 A Törvényszék, noha csak közvetetten, már határozott a jelen ügyben felvetődő kérdésről a 2006. szeptember 6‐i DEF‐TEC Defense Technology kontra OHIM‐Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) ítéletben (T‐6/05, EU:T:2006:241), a 2011. április 13‐i Safariland kontra OHIM‐DEF‐TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) ítéletben (T‐262/09, EU:T:2011:171) és a 2012. november 29‐i Adamowski kontra OHIM‐Fagumit (FAGUMIT) ítéletben (T‐537/10 és T‐538/10, EU:T:2012:634).

Italian

4 Il Tribunale si è già pronunciato, sebbene solo indirettamente, sulla questione sollevata nella presente causa nelle sentenze del 6 settembre 2006, DEF-TEC Defense Technology/UAMI – Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐6/05, EU:T:2006:241), del 13 aprile 2011, Safariland/UAMI – DEF-TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐262/09, EU:T:2011:171) e del 29 novembre 2012, Adamowski/UAMI-Fagumit (FAGUMIT) (T‐537/10 e T‐538/10, EU:T:2012:634).

Latvian

4 Vispārējā tiesa – lai arī netieši – jau ir lēmusi par šajā lietā izvirzīto jautājumu 2006. gada 6. septembra spriedumā DEF‐TEC Defense Technology/ITSB–Defense Technology (“FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR”) (T‐6/05, EU:T:2006:241), 2011. gada 13. aprīļa spriedumā Safariland/ITSB – DEF‐TEC Defense Technology (“FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR”) (T‐262/09, EU:T:2011:171) un 2012. gada 29. novembra spriedumā Adamowski/ITSB‐Fagumit (“FAGUMIT”) (T‐537/10 un T‐538/10, EU:T:2012:634).

Maltese

4 Il-Qorti Ġenerali diġà ddeċidiet, minkejja li b’mod indirett, dwar il-kwistjoni mqajma f’din il-kawża fis-sentenzi tas-6 ta’ Settembru 2006, DEF‐TEC Defense Technology vs UASI – Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐6/05, EU:T:2006:241); tat-13 ta’ April 2011, Safariland vs UASI – DEF‐TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐262/09, EU:T:2011:171); u tad-29 Novembru 2012, Adamowski vs UASI – Fagumit (FAGUMIT) (T‐537/10 u T‐538/10, EU:T:2012:634).

Dutch

4 Het Gerecht heeft zich, zij het indirect, reeds uitgesproken over deze kwestie in zijn arresten van 6 september 2006, DEF‐TEC Defense Technology/BHIM – Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐6/05, EU:T:2006:241); 13 april 2011, Safariland/BHIM – DEF‐TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐262/09, EU:T:2011:171), en 29 november 2012, Adamowski/BHIM – Fagumit (FAGUMIT) (T‐537/10 en T‐538/10, EU:T:2012:634).

Polish

4 Sąd wypowiedział się już, choć jedynie pośrednio, w kwestii podniesionej w niniejszej sprawie w wyrokach: z dnia 6 września 2006 r., DEF-TEC Defense Technology/OHIM – Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐6/05, EU:T:2006:241); z dnia 13 kwietnia 2011 r., Safariland/OHIM – DEF-TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐262/09, EU:T:2011:171); z dnia 29 listopada 2012 r., Adamowski/OHIM – Fagumit (FAGUMIT) (T‐537/10 i T‐538/10, EU:T:2012:634).

Portuguese

4 O Tribunal Geral já se pronunciou, ainda que indiretamente, sobre a questão suscitada no presente processo nos Acórdãos de 6 de setembro de 2006, DEF‐TEC Defense Technology/IHMI‐Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJETOR) (T‐6/05, EU:T:2006:241), de 13 de abril de 2011, Safariland/IHMI – DEF‐TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐262/09, EU:T:2011:171) e de 29 de novembro de 2012, Adamowski/IHMI‐Fagumit (FAGUMIT) (T‐537/10 e T‐538/10, EU:T:2012:634).

Romanian

4 Tribunalul s‐a pronunțat deja, deși numai indirect, cu privire la problema ridicată în prezenta cauză în Hotărârea din 6 septembrie 2006, DEF‐TEC Defense Technology/OAPI – Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐6/05, EU:T:2006:241), în Hotărârea din 13 aprilie 2011, Safariland/OAPI – DEF‐TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐262/09, EU:T:2011:171), și în Hotărârea din 29 noiembrie 2012, Adamowski/OAPI – Fagumit (FAGUMIT) (T‐537/10 și T‐538/10, EU:T:2012:634).

Slovak

4 Všeobecný súd už rozhodol, hoci len nepriamo, o problematike, ktorá je predmetom prejednávanej veci, v rozsudkoch zo 6. septembra 2006, DEF‐TEC Defense Technology/ÚHVT – Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐6/05, EU:T:2006:241), z 13. apríla 2011, Safariland/ÚHVT – DEF‐TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐262/09, EU:T:2011:171), a z 29. novembra 2012, Adamowski/ÚHVT – Fagumit (FAGUMIT) (T‐537/10 a T‐538/10, EU:T:2012:634).

Slovenian

4 Sodišče se je že izreklo, čeprav samo posredno, o vprašanju, ki je bilo postavljeno v tej zadevi v sodbah z dne 6. septembra 2006, DEF‐TEC Defense Technology/UAMI – Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐6/05, EU:T:2006:241); z dne 13. aprila 2011, Safariland/UAMI – DEF‐TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T‐262/09, EU:T:2011:171), in z dne 29. novembra 2012, Adamowski/UAMI-Fagumit (FAGUMIT) (T‐537/10 in T‐538/10, EU:T:2012:634).

Swedish

4 Tribunalen har redan uttalat sig, om än indirekt, i frågan i det nu aktuella målet i dom av den 6 september 2006, DEF-TEC Defense Technology/UAMI–Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T-6/05, EU:T:2006:241), dom av den 13 april 2011, Safariland/UAMI – DEF-TEC Defense Technology (FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR) (T-262/09, EU:T:2011:171) och dom av den 29 november 2012, Adamowski/UAMI-Fagumit (FAGUMIT) (T-537/10 e T-538/10, EU:T:2012:634).