Case C‑136/02 P, Mag Instrument v OHIM used to be [2004] ECR I‑9165 but it's now EU:C:2004:592He was a bit disconcerted by this, for a number of reasons, including these:
Case C‑25/05 P, Storck v OHIM used to be [2006] I-5719 but it's now EU:C:2006:422
Case C‑106/03 P, Vedial v OHIM used to be [2004] ECR I-9573 but it's now EU:C:2004:611
- He's not sure what happened to the old citations and wonders if they're still valid
- It's not immediately apparent as to whether there is any correspondence between the old citations and the new ones, and it rather looks as though there isn't any
- He has spotted a case -- Case C-521/12 P Bimbo SA v OHIM, Panrico SA -- in which the Advocate General used the old citations while the judgment cited the new ones
- Editors of journals, authors of books, articles and case notes, students and researchers have received no guidance as to what to do when citing decisions
- Even Thomson Reuters, the illustrious publishers of the European Trade Mark Reports, had no idea that this was happening
No-one asked Merpel's permission- It isn't known whether cases cited in argument before the CJEU must be cited in the new form only
- As of today, the General Court appears to be using the traditional mode of citation only, if Case T-62/13 Golam v OHIM, Glaxo (METABIOMAX) is typical.
How do we refer to CJEU cases now? A Kat's lament
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Rating:
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
New method of citing the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the basis of the ECLI
ReplyDeletehttp://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/P_125997/
This is what happens when you vote for UKIP!
ReplyDeleteJeremy,
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the CJEU has finally adopted the European Case Law Identifier.
From the abstract of the cited link:
In December 2010 the EU Council of Ministers decided on the ‘Conclusions inviting the introduction of the European Case Law Id entifier (ECLI) and a minimum set of uniform metadata for case law.
I've seen the ECLI scheme being progressively adopted by various instances, including the EPO Boards of Appeals. (This is curious, as the EPOrg is not linked to the EU, and when I first noticed these numbers more than a year ago I couldn't find any formal decision or announcement in the OJ).
A typical EPO ECLI:
ECLI:EP:BA:2014:T235908.20140206
There is also at least one general paper on the subject.
Thanks so much, Mathieu! This is really helpful
ReplyDeleteMarc van Opijnen, "European Case Law Identifier: Indispensable Asset for Legal Information Retrieval" does a good job of explaining the background :
ReplyDeletehttp://alnola.home.xs4all.nl/pubs/Marc_van_Opijnen_fik_ECLI.pdf
Not the mention the sweet "ECJ" replace by "CJEU". Try and pronounce this. Not smooth, I'm telling you. -Inga Mai
ReplyDelete