All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html
Posts
Comments
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Flat rates supported by clauses on universality of repertoire in contracts between CMOs and users are anti-competitive, says Spanish Competition Authority](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhpBg7o3d7DPzH4YqNz3DUV5J5_sS4P7X7ZznFNETyQlLe0gonaSi3eE_jdjHD_aIjbPKhgpvUrkg6tPprYQYdwDGiyuWIXty9BOUlc07wUVbjDxI1bHoVxZA0ZCC9HBPjLXQwUioBSd9e9n-Z3uCeJ9UUgEvtJHLo1AllR20HGJETFdKoovxLBMw/s72-c/images.png)
![[Guest post] Asking ourselves ‘Y’ – Are shape marks shaping complex products’ aftermarkets?](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHwE0es_m0lzJpedp0KFtKOYBne_M3YPJ-qwQxiY_YMkHffLAAXkSW9F-pjQFKsy5kJJ-VWScQQkuEVb5-BxnDv10XIMAbYhvgzBSQadD1gdTiIjg9-Oj9Iekll-C3Ca9I76uI3Hh5nCI4QyLosLSNev9VzLq9lF1jM86ungheEDOBKLzGTbE3yw/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
I found the same translation on the ECJ site, though.
ReplyDeleteMargaret Marks
www.margaret-marks.com/Transblawg
Please tell me how - I still can't find it!
ReplyDeleteWell, I used your case number. You understand, I thought maybe there would be two different translations of the case on line, and it would have been interesting to compare them.
ReplyDeleteI went to EUR-Lex
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/
and clicked on Case-law (I wish the EU would drop this hyphen). Then I chose the search at the top, Search by case number.
I entered the year 2001 and the number 456 in the boxes and clicked on the magnifying-glass symbol on the right. That gave me the judgment and the opinion in html.
http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=62001J0456&model=guichett
Margaret
www.margaret-marks.com/Transblawg
Thanks for this Margaret. I'd been using the ECJ's webiste (www.curia.eu.int). Now if Eurolex can manage to get an English translation online why can't the Court's official site?
ReplyDeleteYes, it occurred to me afterwards that it wasn't the Court's site. I used to look at that, but via EUR-Lex I can find a wider variety of things. I didn't realize it had things earlier than the Court site!
ReplyDeleteMargaret
Think that could give you some Search Engine popularity, and traffic???
ReplyDeleteWhat a wonderful invention it is, this thing we call the Internet!
ReplyDelete