Feed aggregator

Assurance responsabilité

Construction immobilière - vente

Construction immobilière

Construction immobilière - vente

Architecte entrepreneur

Readers of our blog will recall that Prof. Dr. Andreas Schwartze from the University of Innsbruck will host the final conference of the EU-project “unalex – multilingual information for the uniform interpretation of the instruments of judicial cooperation in civil matters“ in Innsbruck on 24 November  (see our earlier post).

The full and final programme (including information as regards registration and accommodation) is now available here, here, and here.

The precise application of the Brussels I Recast’s exclusive jurisdictional rules, remains a balancing exercise. Being an exception to the Regulation’s’ overall preference for the domicile of the defendant, they have to be given a narrow reading. On the other hand, they serve what the Regulation sees as being important purposes of preference of one particular jurisdiction over another, hence the exception cannot be so narrowly construed as to lose purpose. In C-341/16 Hanssen, the CJEU held last week and confirmed Saugmansgaard ØE AG’s Opinion of the summer.

Does an action seeking an order requiring the person formally registered as proprietor of a Benelux mark to make a declaration to the OBPI that she has no entitlement to the mark and that she waives registration as the proprietor of that mark, fall within the scope of Article 24(4) of Brussels I Recast? No, it does not:  the main proceedings in this case do not relate to the validity, existence or lapse of the trade mark or an alleged right of priority by reason of an earlier deposit. They are solely concerned with whether the proprietor of the contested mark is Ms Prast-Knipping or Hanssen Beleggingen, which must be determined on the basis of the legal relationship existing between the parties concerned: Hanssen Beleggingen submits that, as a result of a chain of transfers of the contested mark, it has become the actual proprietor of the rights to the contested mark. Existence etc. of the trademark is not at issue.

The question of the individual estate to which an intellectual property right belongs is not, generally, closely linked in fact and law to the place where that right has been registered (at 37): hence the raison d’être of Article 24(4) is not engaged.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.6, Heading 2.2.6.7

L’arrêt rapporté fournit un nouvel exemple de violation du droit à un procès équitable dans un délai raisonnable, au sujet d’une procédure dont la durée totale était de neuf ans et dix mois. 

en lire plus

L’arrêt rapporté fournit un nouvel exemple de violation du droit à un procès équitable dans un délai raisonnable, au sujet d’une procédure dont la durée totale était de neuf ans et dix mois. 

en lire plus