This Kat has spotted something that surprised him on the Curia website. When browsing
Case C‑97/12 P,
Louis Vuitton Malletier v OHIM, a 15 May ruling of Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on registrability of an illustration of a lock for goods which either did or didn't have locks, he noticed that some of the cases cited in the CJEU's judgment had odd-looking citations for reference purposes. For example:
Case C‑136/02 P, Mag Instrument v OHIM used to be [2004] ECR I‑9165 but it's now EU:C:2004:592
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 was a bit disconcerted by this, for a number of reasons, including these:
- 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.
Can any kind reader please explain?
