Europäisches Markenrecht UNIVERSITÄT SZEGED JURISTISCHE FAKULTÄT 2009-2010 Dr. Alexander v. Mühlendahl, J.D., LL.M. Rechtsanwalt BARDEHLE PAGENBERG DOST.

Europäisches Markenrecht UNIVERSITÄT SZEGED JURISTISCHE FAKULTÄT 2009-2010 Dr. Alexander v. Mühlendahl, J.D., LL.M. Rechtsanwalt BARDEHLE PAGENBERG DOST ALTENBURG GEISSLER München Patent- und Rechtsanwälte Dr. Alexander v. Mühlendahl Galileiplatz 1 D-81679 München Tel. +49 (89) 92 80 5-0 Fax +49 (89) 92 80 5-444 vonmuhlendahl@bardehle.de www.bardehle.com

Teil III Europäisches Markenrecht Relative Schutzhindernisse

Relative Schutzhindernisse - Grundsätze Konflikt zwischen Rechten Prinzip der Äquivalenz Prioritätsprinzip

Relative Schutzhindernisse - Grundsätze Prüfung von Amts wegen, Prüfung nur auf Antrag Verfahren Eintragungsverfahren Widerspruchsverfahren Löschungsverfahren Verletzungsverfahren

Relative Schutzhindernisse Ältere Marken – Artikel 8 (2), (3) GMV Gemeinschaftsmarken Nationale Marken Madrid Marken Notorisch bekannte Marken Angemeldete Marken Marken des „ungetreuen Agenten“

Relative Schutzhindernisse Sonstige ältere Kennzeichenrechte – Artikel 8 (4) GMV Nicht eingetragene Marken Sonstige im geschäftlichen Verkehr benutzte Kennzeichen (Handelsnamen, Unternehmensbezeichnungen, …) von nicht lediglich örtlicher Bedeutung

Relative Schutzhindernisse Sonstige ältere Rechte – Artikel 52 GMV Namensrecht Recht am eigenen Bild Urheberrecht Designrecht Sonstige Rechte Prüfung nur im Löschungsverfahren

Relative Schutzhindernisse Konflikt: Markenkollisionen Doppelte Identität – identische Marken, identische Waren/Dienstleistungen Alle anderen Fälle – Verwechslungsgefahr „Bekannte Marken“ – Schutz gegen Beeinträchtigung oder Ausnutzung der Unterscheidungskraft oder des Rufes

Trade Mark Cases Doppelidentität

European Court of Justice LTJ Diffusion/Sadas Vertbaudet („ARTHUR/ARTHUR ET FELICIE“) Case C-291/00 Hearing 10 October 2001 Advocate General Jacobs 17 January 2002 Rapporteur Macken Decision 20 March 2003

LTJ Diffusion C-291/00 ARTHUR ET FELICIE

C-291/00 LTJ Diffusion 54. … Article 5 (1)(a) of the Directive must be interpreted as meaning that a sign is identical with the trade mark where it reproduces, without any modification or addition, all the elements constituting the trade mark or where, viewed as a whole, it contains differences so insignificant that they may go unnoticed by an average consumer.

Relative Schutzhindernisse – Verwechslungsgefahr Verwechslungsgefahr Die ältere Marke setzt sich gegen die jüngere durch, wenn wegen der Identität oder Ähnlichkeit der Marken und wegen der Identität oder Ähnlichkeit der Waren/Dienstleistungen beim Publikum die Gefahr von Verwechslungen über die kommerzielle Herkunft der Waren/Dienstleistungen aus denselben oder aus wirtschaftliche verbundenen Unternehmen besteht

Relative Schutzhindernisse – Verwechslungsgefahr Verwechslungsgefahr Prüfung der Verwechslungsgefahr erfordert Feststellung des Gebiets, in dem die ältere Marke geschützt ist, Feststellung des „Publikums“, an das die Marken sich richten

Relative Schutzhindernisse – Verwechslungsgefahr Markenähnlichkeit bildliche Ähnlichkeit phonetische Ähnlichkeit begriffliche Ähnlichkeit Besondere Berücksichtigung der kennzeichnenden und dominanten Bestandteile (bei Kombinationsmarken)

Relative Schutzhindernisse - Verwechslungsgefahr Waren/Dienstleistungsähnlichkeit Natur Art Verwendungszweck Komplementarität Wettbewerb Vertriebswege Herkunftsstätten

Relative Schutzhindernisse - Verwechslungsgefahr Die Feststellung der Verwechslungsgefahr erfordert eine umfassende Berücksichtigung aller Umstände des Einzelfalls, und insbesondere folgender Umstände: Grad der Kennzeichnungskraft der älteren Marke Grad der Ähnlichkeit der Marken Grad der Ähnlichkeit der Waren(Dienstleistungen Grad der Aufmerksamkeit des Publikums alle sonstige Umstände

Relative Schutzhindernisse - Verwechslungsgefahr Beispiele

European Court of Justice SABEL BV/PUMA AG („Springende Raubkatze“) Case C-251/95 Advocate General Jacobs 29 April 1997 Rapporteur Gulmann Decision 11 November 1997

C-291/95 Sabel/Puma Earlier marks

C-291/95 Sabel/Puma Later mark

European Court of Justice Lloyd Schuhfabrik Meyer/Klijsen Handel BV („Lloyd/Loint‘s“) Case C-342/97 Hearing Advocate General Jacobs 29 October 1998 Decision 22 June 1999

C-342/97 Lloyd/Klijsen LLOYDLoint’s

C-342/97 Lloyd/Klijsen 28 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the questions referred to the Court must be that it is possible that mere aural similarity between trade marks may create a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 5(1)(b) of the Directive. The more similar the goods or services covered and the more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion. In determining the distinctive character of a mark and, accordingly, in assessing whether it is highly distinctive, it is necessary to make a global assessment of the greater or lesser capacity of the mark to identify the goods or services for which it has been registered as coming from a particular undertaking, and thus to distinguish those goods or services from those of other undertakings. In making that assessment, account should be taken of all relevant factors and, in particular, of the inherent characteristics of the mark, including the fact that it does or does not contain an element descriptive of the goods or services for which it has been registered. It is not possible to state in general terms, for example by referring to given percentages relating to the degree of recognition attained by the mark within the relevant section of the public, when a mark has a strong distinctive character.

European Court of Justice Medion AG v. Thomson Multimedia Sales Germany & Austria GmbH („LIFE“/„THOMSON LIFE“) Case C-120/04 Case filed Hearing Advocate General Jacobs 9 June 2005 Rapporteur Gulmann Decision 6 October 2005

C-120/04 Medion/Thomson LIFETHOMSON LIFE

C-120/04 Medion/Thomson Article 5(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that where the goods or services are identical there may be a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public where the contested sign is composed by juxtaposing the company name of another party and a registered mark which has normal distinctiveness and which, without alone determining the overall impression conveyed by the composite sign, still has an independent distinctive role therein.

European Court of Justice Canon KK/Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. („CANON/CANNON“) Case C-39/97 Hearing Advocate General Jacobs 2 April 1998 Rapporteur Gulmann Decision 29 September 1998

C-39/97 Canon/MGM 29.9.1998 CANONCANNON

C-37/97 Canon/MGM 22. It is, however, important to stress that, for the purposes of applying Article 4(1)(b), even where a mark is identical to another with a highly distinctive character, it is still necessary to adduce evidence of similarity between the goods or services covered. In contrast to Article 4(4)(a), which expressly refers to the situation in which the goods or services are not similar, Article 4(1)(b) provides that the likelihood of confusion presupposes that the goods or services covered are identical or similar. 23. In assessing the similarity of the goods or services concerned, as the French and United Kingdom Governments and the Commission have pointed out, all the relevant factors relating to those goods or services themselves should be taken into account. Those factors include, inter alia, their nature, their end users [correct: purpose] and their method of use and whether they are in competition with each other or are complementary.

European Court of Justice Matratzen Markt Concord/OHIM („Matratzen“/„Matratzen Markt Concord“ fig) Appeal against CFI decision of 23 October 2002 Case C-3/03 P - T-6/01 Hearing: no hearing Advocate General: no opinion Rapporteur Macken Order 28 April 2004

C-303/03 P Matratzen Markt Concord/OHIM MATRATZEN

C-104/03 P Vedial/OHIM SAINT HUBERT 41

C-361/04 P – T-185/02 Picasso/OHIM PICAROPICASSO

C-206/04 P Mülhens/OHIM ZIRH

C-235/05 P – T-112/03 L’Oreal/OHIM FLEXFLEXI AIR

C-324/06 P – T-34/04 Plus/OHIM POWER

European Court of Justice Sergio Rossi SpA/OHIM – Sissi Rossi Srl (MISS ROSSI/SISSI ROSSI) C-214/05 P – T-169/03 – R 569/2002-1 Case filed 10 May 2005 Hearing: No hearing Advocate General Kokott 16 March 2006 Rapporteur Malenovsky Decision (Third Chamber) 18 July 2006 Appeal dismissed (no LOC)

C-214/05 – T-169/03 Sergio Rossi/OHIM 18.7.2006 SISSI ROSSIMISS ROSSI

European Court of Justice Saiwa SpA/OHIM – Barilla G. e R. Fratelli SpA (ORO/Selezione ORO BARILLA fig) C-245/06 P – T-344/03 – R 480/2002-4 Case filed 31 May 2006 Hearing: no hearing Advocate General J. Kokott, no opinion Rapporteur: J. Klucka Decision (Order) (Seventh Chamber) 9 March 2007 No LOC (confirmed)

T-344/03 Saiwa/OHIM 9.3.2007 ORO ORO SAIWA

European Court of Justice Devinlec Developpement Innovation Leclerc SA/OHIM – T.I.M.E. ART SA (Quantieme fig/Quantum fig) C-171/06 P – T-147/03 – R 109/2002-3 Appeal filed 31 March 2006 Hearing: No hearing Advocate General Sharpston: No opinion Decision (Order) (Seventh Chamber) (A. O Coaimh, Rapporteur) 15 March 2007 Appeal dismissed (LOC)

C-171/06 P - T-147/03 Devlinec/OHIM 15.3.2007

European Court of Justice Castellblanch SA/OHIM – Champagne Louis Roederer SA („CRISTAL“/CRISTAL Castellblanch fig) C-131/06 – T-29/04 – R 37/2002-2 Case filed 23 February 2006 Hearing: No hearing AG: P. Mengozzi, no opinion Raporteur: J.-C. Bonichot Decision (Order) (Sixth Chamber) 24 April 2007 Use, LOC (confirmed)

C-131/06 P – T-29/04 Castellblanch SA/OHIM 24.4.2007 CRISTAL

European Court of Justice Alcon Inc./OHIM – Biofarma SA („TRIVASTAN“/„TRAVATAN“) C-412/05 P – T-130/03 – R 968/2001-3 Appeal filed 23 November 2005 Hearing 27 September 2006 Advocate General Kokott 26 October 2006 Decision (Third Chamber) (A. O Coaimh, Rapporteur) 26 April 2007 Appeal dismissed (LOC)

C-412/05 P – T-130/03 Alcon Inc./OHIM 26.4.2007 TRIVASTANTRAVATAN

C-412/05 P Alcon/OHIM 61 Furthermore, since it is undisputed that the whole process of marketing the goods at issue is aimed at the end-user’s acquisition of them, the Court of First Instance was entitled to hold that the role played by intermediaries, even if they are healthcare professionals whose prior intervention is required in order to sell those goods to end-users, must be in part balanced against the high degree of attentiveness which may be shown by those users, in the light of the fact that the goods at issue are pharmaceutical products, when they are prescribed and, consequently, against those users’ ability to make those professionals take into account their perception of the trade marks at issue and, in particular, their requirements or preferences.

European Court of Justice OHIM/Liminana y Botella S.L. - Shaker di L. Laudato & C. Sas (LIMONCHELO/Limoncello della Costa Amalfitana fig.) Appeal against CFI decision of 15 June 2005 Case C-334/05 P – T-7/04 Appeal filed 9 September 2005 Hearing 24 January 2007 Advocate General Kokott 8 March 2007 Rapporteur Klucka Decision (Third Chamber) 12 June 2007

C-334/05 P – T-07/04 OHIM/Liminana y Botella 12.6.2007 LIMONCHELO

C-334/05 P OHIM/Shaker 37 In the present case the Court of First Instance, at paragraph 49 of the judgment under appeal, noted the case-law mentioned in paragraph 35 of the present judgment according to which the global appreciation of the likelihood of confusion must be based on the overall impression created by the signs at issue. 38 However, it stated in paragraph 54 of the judgment under appeal that, if the trade mark claimed was a complex mark which was visual in nature, the assessment of the overall impression created by that mark and the determination as to whether there was a dominant element had to be carried out on the basis of a visual analysis. It added that, in such a case, it was only to the extent to which a potentially dominant element included non-visual semantic aspects that it might become necessary to compare that element with the earlier mark, also taking into account those other semantic aspects, such as for example phonetic factors or relevant abstract concepts.

C-334/05 P OHIM/Shaker 39 On the basis of those considerations, the Court of First Instance, in the context of the analysis of the signs at issue, firstly held that the mark for which registration was sought contained a dominant element comprising the representation of a round dish decorated with lemons. It then inferred, in paragraphs 62 to 64 of the judgment under appeal, that it was not necessary to examine the phonetic or conceptual features of the other elements of that mark. It finally concluded, in paragraph 66 of the judgment, that the dominance of the figurative representation of a round dish decorated with lemons in comparison with the other components of the mark prevented any likelihood of confusion arising from the visual, phonetic or conceptual similarities between the words ‘limonchelo’ and ‘limoncello’ which appear in the marks at issue. 40 However, in so doing, the Court of First Instance did not carry out a global assessment of the likelihood of confusion of the marks at issue.

C-334/05 P OHIM/Shaker 41 It is important to note that, according to the case-law of the Court, in the context of consideration of the likelihood of confusion, assessment of the similarity between two marks means more than taking just one component of a composite trade mark and comparing it with another mark. On the contrary, the comparison must be made by examining each of the marks in question as a whole, which does not mean that the overall impression conveyed to the relevant public by a composite trade mark may not, in certain circumstances, be dominated by one or more of its components (see order in Matratzen Concord v OHIM, paragraph 32; Medion, paragraph 29). 42 As the Advocate General pointed out in point 21 of her Opinion, it is only if all the other components of the mark are negligible that the assessment of the similarity can be carried out solely on the basis of the dominant element.

European Court of Justice Athinaiki Oikogeniaki Artopoiia AVEE v. OHIM – Ferrero Deutschland GmbH (Ferrero – Ferro Fig) C-225/06 P – T-35/04 Case filed 16 May 2006 Hearing: No hearing Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer Sharpston 29 March 2007 Decision (Order) (Eighth Chamber) Juhasz, Arestis (Rapp.), Malenovsky 11 September 2007 LOC (confirmed)

C-225/06 P – T-35/04 Athinaiki/OHIM 11.9.2007 FERRERO 5, 29, 30, 32, 33 29,30, 42

European Court of Justice Societe des Produits Nestle, S.A. v. OHIM – Quick Restaurants (QUICKIES/QUICKY fig) C-193/06 – T-74/04 – R 922/2001-2 Case filed 24 April 2006 Hearing 13 June 2007 Decision (Third Chamber) 20 September 2007 Visual similarity – wrong standard (reversed)

C-193/06 – T-74/04 Nestle/OHIM 20.9.2007 QUICKIES

ECJ C-405/06 P – T-247/03 Miguel Torres, SA v. OHIM – Bodegas Muga, SA (TORRES – Torre Muga fig) C-405/06 P – T-247/03 Case filed 28 September 2006 Hearing none Advocate General none Decision (Order) 24 September 2007

C-405/06 P – T-247/03 Torres/Bodegas Muga 24.9.2007 TORRES

European Court of Justice Ferrero Deutschland GmbH v. OHIM – Cornu SA Fontain (Ferrero – Ferro) C-108/07 P – T-310/04 Case filed 23 February 2007 Hearing: No hearing Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer: no hearing Decision (First Chamber) Jann, Tizzano, Borg Barthet, Ilesic (Rapp.) 17 April 2008 LOC (reversed)

C-108/07 P – T-310/04 Ferrero/OHIM 17.4.2008 FERRERO FERRO

ECJ C-488/06 P – T-168/04 L & D SA v. OHIM – Julius Sämann Ltd (Arbre magique fig – Aire Limpio fig) C-488/06 P – T-168/04 Case filed 24 November 2006 Hearing none Advocate General E. Sharpston 13 March 2008 Decision (Second Chamber, Makarczyk, J.-C. Bonichot and C. Toader, Rapp.) 17 July 2008 LOC confirmed

C-488/06 P – T-168/04 L & D/Sämann 17.7.2008

European Court of Justice Armacell Enterprises GmbH – nmc SA („NOMAFOAM“/„ARMAFOAM“) C-514/06 – T-172/05 – R 552/2004-1 Case filed 15.11.2006 Hearing 10.1.2008 No AG (Trstenjak) Decision 18.9.2008 (First) (Levist) LOC (confirmed)

C-514/06 P - T-172/05 Armacell Enterprises/nmc 18.9.2008 NOMAFOAMARMAFOAM

European Court of Justice Les Editions Albert Rene/OHIM – Orange A/S („Obelix“/„MOBILIX“) C-16/06 – T-336/03/03 – R 559/2002-4 Hearing 25.10.2007 AG Trstenjak 29.11.2007 Decision 18.12.2008, First Chamber (P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Tizzano, A. Borg Barthet, M. Ilešič and E. Levits (Rapporteur), Judges No LOC (confirmed)

C-16/06 P - T-336/03 Les Editions Albert Rene/OHIM ObelixMOBILIX

C-21/08 P – T-38/04 Sunplus 26.3.2009 – 15.11.2007 Sunplus Technology Co. v. OHIM – Sun Microsystems, Inc. (SUN – SUNPLUS fig) C-21/08 P – T-38/04 – R 642/2000-4 Case filed 21.1.2008 Hearing 5.2.2009 No AG Decision (Second, Kuris) 26.3.2009 LOC – confirmed Facts and law

T-38/04 Sunplus Technology/OHIM SUN

C-398/07 P – T-105/05 Waterford 7.5.2009 – 12.6.2007 Waterford Wedgwood plc – Assembed Investments (Proprietary) Ltd (WATERFORD – WATERFORD STELLENBOSCH fig) C-398/07 P – T-105/05 – R 240/2004-1 Filed 17.8.2007 No AG, no hearing Decision (Fifth, Borg Barthet) 7.5.2009 No LOC confirmed, similarity of goods Also procedure

C-398/07 – T-105/05 Waterford Wedgwood/Assembled Investments 7.5.2009 WATERFORD

C-416/08 P – T-328/05 Apple 10.7.2009 – 1.7.2008 Apple Computer Inc. – TKS-Teknosoft SA (Quartz fig – QUARTZ) C-416/08 P – T-328705 – R 416/2004-4 Case filed 18.9.2008 No Hearing No AG (Trstenjak) Order 10.7.2009 Sixth, Kuris LOC confirmed, appeal inadmissible as manifestly unfounded (findings of fact)

C-416/08 P – T-328/05 Apple Computer/TKS 10.7.2009 – 1.7.2008 QUARTZ

C-498/07 P – T-363/04 Aceites del Sur 3.9.2009 – 12.9.2007 Aceites del Sur-Coosur SA v. OHIM – Koipe Corporacion SL (Carbonell fig/La Espanola fig) C-498/07 P – T-363/04 – R 1109/2000-4 Case filed 12.11.2007 Hearing 14. 10.2008 Advocate General Mazak 3.2.2009 Decision 3.9.2009 (First, Tizzano) LOC confirmed Immaterial error Admissibility, facts and law

Relative Schutzhindernisse – bekannte Marken

„Bekannte“ Marken geniessen Schutz in bestimmten Fällen auch ohne Verwechslungsgefahr

Relative Schutzhindernisse – bekannte Marken Schutzvoraussetzungen Ältere Marke muss eingetragen sein Ältere Marke muss „bekannt“ sein Die angegriffene Marke muss identisch oder ähnlich sein Die Waren oder Dienstleistungen müssen nicht identisch oder ähnlich sein Die Benutzung der jüngeren Marke muss die Unterscheidungskraft oder den Ruf der älteren Marke ohne rechtfertigenden Grund in unlauterer Weise ausnutzen oder beeinträchtigen

Relative Schutzhindernisse – bekannte Marken Prüfung: Allgemeine Kriterien Relevantes Publikum Publikum, an das die Marke sich richtet Relevantes Gebiet wesentlicher Teil des Gebiets, in dem die ältere Marke geschützt ist

Relative Schutzhindernisse – bekannte Marken Bekanntheit Kenntnis der Marke durch einen wesentlichen Teil des Publikums in dem Gebiet, in dem die ältere Marke Schutz geniesst Keine festen Prozentsätze

Relative Schutzhindernisse – bekannte Marken Relevantes Publikum Publikum, an das die Marke sich richtet

Relative Schutzhindernisse – bekannte Marken Relevantes Gebiet wesentlicher Teil des Gebiets, in dem die ältere Marke geschützt ist was ist „wesentlicher Teil“ der EU?

C-301/07 PAGO 6.10.2009 PAGO International GmbH – Tirolmilch registrierte Genossenschaft mbH (PAGO fig – Latella fig) Reference from öOGH 12./26.6.2007 5.6.2008 AG Sharpston 30.4.2009 6.10.2009, Second Bay Larsen

C-301/07 PAGO 6.10.2009 CTM 915488

Relative Schutzhindernisse – bekannte Marken Zeichenähnlichkeit Zeichen sind im Sinne des Artikels 8 (5) GMV ähnlich, wenn ohne Hervorrufen von Verwechslungsgefahr das Publikum wegen der Übereinstimmungen eine Verbindung zwischen den Zeichen herstellt

Relative Schutzhindernisse – bekannte Marken Waren und Dienstleistungen Schutz bekannter Marken ist gegeben gegenüber identischen, ähnlichen und unähnlichen Waren/Dienstleistungen

Relative Schutzhindernisse – bekannte Marken Beeinträchtigung oder Ausnutzung der Unterscheidungskraft oder des Rufes Verwässerung Rufausbeutung oder Rufschädigung Unlauterkeit Rechtfertigung

C-487/07 L’Oreal 18.6.2009 L‘Oreal SA v. Bellure (L‘Oreal) Reference from Court of Appeal for England and Wales 22.10./5.11.2007 5.11.2008 AG Mengozzi 10.2.2009 18.6.2009, First, Ilesic

C-487/07 L’Oreal 18.6.2009

Relative Schutzhindernisse – sonstige ältere Rechte

Sonstige ältere Kennzeichenrechte – Artikel 8 (4) GMV Nicht eingetragene Marken Sonstige im geschäftlichen Verkehr benutzte Kennzeichen (Handelsnamen, Unternehmensbezeichnungen, …) von nicht lediglich örtlicher Bedeutung soweit sie das Recht verleihen, die Benutzung einer jüngeren Marke zu untersagen

Relative Schutzhindernisse – sonstige ältere Rechte Sonstige ältere Rechte – Artikel 53 GMV Namensrecht Recht am eigenen Bild Urheberrecht Designrecht Sonstige Rechte Prüfung nur im Löschungsverfahren

Information über HABM/GM oami.europa.eu Kontakt vonmuhlendahl@bardehle.de

Europäisches Markenrecht UNIVERSITÄT SZEGED JURISTISCHE FAKULTÄT 2009-2010 Dr. Alexander v. Mühlendahl, J.D., LL.M. Rechtsanwalt BARDEHLE PAGENBERG DOST.

Ähnliche Präsentationen

Präsentation zum Thema: "Europäisches Markenrecht UNIVERSITÄT SZEGED JURISTISCHE FAKULTÄT 2009-2010 Dr. Alexander v. Mühlendahl, J.D., LL.M. Rechtsanwalt BARDEHLE PAGENBERG DOST."— Präsentation transkript:

Ähnliche Präsentationen

Über Projekt

Feedback

Anmelden

Anmeldung über soziales Netzwerk:

Europäisches Markenrecht UNIVERSITÄT SZEGED JURISTISCHE FAKULTÄT 2009-2010 Dr. Alexander v. Mühlendahl, J.D., LL.M. Rechtsanwalt BARDEHLE PAGENBERG DOST.

Ähnliche Präsentationen

Präsentation zum Thema: "Europäisches Markenrecht UNIVERSITÄT SZEGED JURISTISCHE FAKULTÄT 2009-2010 Dr. Alexander v. Mühlendahl, J.D., LL.M. Rechtsanwalt BARDEHLE PAGENBERG DOST."— Präsentation transkript:

Ähnliche Präsentationen

Über Projekt

Feedback