Agrégateur de flux

Lyle & Scott Ltd v American Eagle Outfitters, Inc [2021] EWHC 90 (Ch) entertains ia the question whether the governing law for passing-off claims involving an eagle trademark, fall under Article 6 or 8 Rome II. The application is for an earlier order allowing service of jurisdiction, to be set aside.

Parties had agreed a ‘memorandum’ (which may or may not be a ‘contract’ – it is further referred to in the judgment as a ‘contract’) following a disagreement on whether each corporation’s eagle (L&S’s being trademarked in the UK and various EU Member States; AEO’s not being trademarked here, I understand) incorporated in apparel involved infringement of trademark and passing off.

AEO are domiciled in the US  and have no physical presence in the UK (or, one assumes, anywhere in the EU (the litigation was initiated pre-Brexit); their apparel is offered via online sales.

Jurisdiction is decided on the basis of the laws of E&W. Applicable law comes into the discussion for per Lord Mance at 46 in VTB v Nutritek,

“The governing law, which is here English, is in general terms, a positive factor in favour of trial in England, because it is generally preferable, other things being equal, that a case should be tried in the country whose law applies. However, that factor is of particular force if issues of law are likely to be important and if there is evidence of relevant differences in the legal principles or rules applicable to such issues in the two countries in contention as the appropriate forum…”.

Miles J discusses the governing law issue at 64 ff. Claimant argue the claim comes under A8 Rome II: infringement of intellectual property rights, English law, lex loci protectionis. Defendants argue they fall under A4 (by way of A6(2): Act of unfair competition), and that A4(3) is engaged to make the applicable law that of the state of Pennsylvania, because of the ‘contractual’ relationship.

At 72 Miles J agrees with the classification under A6, holding ia that ‘(t)he cause of action protects the goodwill of traders against deceptive conduct; goodwill is not an intellectual property right; and passing off is not the infringement of a right.’ Unlike the judge I do not think Rome II’s recital is of much help here and I suspect more can be made of the comparative law insights (common law and civil law) offered.

The next question is whether the claim falls within A6 (2). In Miles J’s succinctly expressed view it does, at 73: ‘The act of unfair competition alleged (passing off) affects exclusively the interests of a specific competitor (L&S). It follows that Art. 4 applies.’ As I have often noted, I find it very difficult to think of acts of unfair competition do not ultimately also impact the consumers of those involved.

The final hurdle then is whether A4(3) is engaged to displace E&W law as the lex loci damni, which at 75 the judge holds is not the case. Parties have not agreed on a governing law for the ‘contract’, they have conducted previous proceedings on the basis of that law being the laws of Pennsylvania. However even if the lex contractus is probably Penn law, and English law probably the lex causae for the passing off claim, Miles J holds this should not have an impact at the jurisdictional level: particularly seeing as there is no immediate reason to assume E&W courts will have great difficulty in applying Penn law to what on the contractual substance does not seem an overly complicated case.

Application dismissed, service out of jurisdiction stands.

This case once again highlights the level of complication resulting from having inserted different heads of applicable law into Rome II – a phenomenon which as I recently reported, might soon be expanded upon.

Geert.

EU private international law, 3rd ed. 2021, Chapter 4, Heading 4.5.2, 4.6.2, 4.6.4.

Horatia Muir Watt, Lucia Biziková, Agatha Brandão de Oliveira, Diego P. Fernández Arroyo and Megan Ma (Sciences Po Law School) have edited Le tournant global en droit international privé, published by Pedone.

This is the French version of Global Private International Law – Adjudication without Frontiers, that the same team of authors had published in 2019 with Edward Elgar.

Global Private International Law is a groundbreaking casebook, combining the expertise of over sixty international and interdisciplinary contributors who analyze key legal proceedings in order to provide a comprehensive study of the impact of globalisation on the law.

Providing a unique and clearly structured tool, this book presents an authoritative collection of carefully selected global case studies. Some of these are considered global due to their internationally relevant subject matter, whilst others demonstrate the blurring of traditional legal categories in an age of accelerated cross-border movement. The study of the selected cases in their political, cultural, social and economic contexts sheds light on the contemporary transformation of law through its encounter with conflicting forms of normativity and the multiplication of potential fora.

Key Features:

• the specific global scope allows the reader to gain a contextualised understanding of legal transformation

• each case has two commentaries from different viewpoints, ensuring a nuanced perspective on the implications of the global turn in private international law and its importance for adjudication

• an astute combination of theory and practice ensures readers gain an understanding of the relevance of innovative legal theories in interpreting concrete cases in a changing world

• comparative material and ground-breaking analysis make this book eminently suitable for use with students and a useful tool for researchers and courts confronted with novel topics or issues.

The French book includes a foreword of Paul Lagarde and an introductory chapter of Horatia Muir Watt which are freely available here, together with the table of contents.

The first chapter of the English book can be freely accessed here.

Non-lieu à renvoi

Etat

FIGC et Consorzio Ge.Se.Av.
Liberté d'établissement
Une fédération sportive nationale, telle que la Fédération italienne de football, peut être soumise aux règles de passation des marchés publics dès lors qu’elle exerce des activités d’intérêt général ayant un caractère autre qu’industriel ou commercial

Fussl Modestraße Mayr
Liberté d'établissement
L’interdiction de diffuser, dans le cadre des programmes de télévision allemands émis au niveau national, de la publicité au seul niveau régional pourrait être contraire au droit de l’Union

Commission / Hongrie (Valeurs limites - PM10)
Environnement et consommateurs
La Hongrie a enfreint les règles du droit de l’Union relatives à la qualité de l’air ambiant

We have previously reported on this case here. This is a collective redress action to seek damages resulting from the Volkswagen emission scandal (also known as Dieselgate).  Proceedings were commenced in the Netherlands against Volkswagen (Group) and involve other related parties such as Audi, Seat, Skoda, Porsche, Robert Bosch, importer(s) and dealers in the Netherlands and abroad. This action is made pursuant to the Dutch Collective Redress of Mass Damages Act (Wet afwikkeling massaschade in collectieve actie, WAMCA).

On 18 January 2021, a case management -pre-trial- hearing (regiezitting in Dutch) was held before the Amsterdam District Court. The purpose of this meeting was for all the parties involved to exchange views on “the desired sequence of subjects to be addressed in the initial phases of the WAMCA procedure”. This includes issues such as the jurisdiction of the Dutch court over the claims, the law that would be applicable to the case, the appointment of an Exclusive Representative Party, etc. For more information, click here.

As indicated before, one of the institutes / organisations seeking to be the exclusive representative in this collective redress action is Diesel Emissions Justice Foundation (DEJF).  The DEJF has stated that: “The [Amsterdam District Court] has indicated that a decision on the order of handling of [these] points can be expected on March 3.”

See also our previous posts: Mass Litigation in Times of Corona and Developments in the Netherlands, Jurisdiction over financial damages – the A-G Opinion in the Volkswagen Case before the CJEU (CJEU) and The VW NOx Emissions Group Litigation, [2019] EWHC 783(QB), and (some aspects of) CoL (UK).

Interestingly, the DEJF has reported about a recent case where a Spanish court ordered damages against Volkswagen. I transcribe the summary of the case provided on the DEFJ website: “25 January 2021 – A Madrid court has found Volkswagen guilty of the use of manipulated software, or “cheating software”. In proceedings brought by a Spanish consumer association against Volkswagen on behalf of 5,400 affiliated consumers, the judge awarded damages totalling € 16.3million for unfair commercial practices, amounting to an average of € 3,000 per consumer. The judge used a pragmatic method to determine this amount; half to compensate for the depreciation of the affected cars and the inconvenience of use of having to have the cars repaired, and the other half for “moral damage” as breach of confidence due to the advertised “green” image of these cars, the environmental damages and the impact on society.” The judgment is available here (in Spanish).

And let us not forget the significant judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 17 December 2020 (Second Chamber): Criminal proceedings against X, Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juge d’instruction du tribunal de grande instance de Paris Case C-693/18 (in French, which was the language of the proceedings). See also here (in other languages but not yet in English). Although this case arises in the context of criminal proceedings, it provides support to the claims above and in establishing liability.

More information is available here.

The Court of First Instance of Thessaloniki ruled on 24 June 2020 that an application by a psychological (non biological) mother to recognize and declare enforceable a UK custody order concerning a child born by the applicant’s partner contravenes Greek public policy (Ruling No. 6175, unreported).

Facts

The applicant [A] is a woman of Greek and American nationality. Her partner was a woman of American nationality [P]. They registered their partnership in the UK on 20 August 2013. Nearly a month later, P. gave birth to a child. The partners married in January 2015.

A. filed an application for child custody and parenting arrangements order in the UK. The court granted the application, and ordered that the child stays with the psychological mother on the basis of previous decisions concerning parental responsibility rights issued in the same country. In addition, the court ordered that the child reside with A., and it issued an order to remove the child permanently to Greece. Finally, the same court arranged the contact rights of the biological mother [P]. The information given in the Greek judgment is that the UK order was issued by the High Court – Family Division in Chelmsford, and that it was final. A. filed an application for the recognition and enforcement of the UK order before the Court of First Instance in Thessaloniki.

The Ruling

The Court of Thessaloniki began by acknowledging its jurisdiction and venue for the case at hand. It then entered into an analysis of the public policy defence, culminating in the conclusion, that the forum judge is obliged to defend national public policy, while at the same time demonstrating respect towards the state’s international obligations. To that end, a proportionality test of the domestic public policy with Article 8 ECHR standards is imperative. Following the above introduction, the court rushed to declare that same-sex marriage, and any subsequent relations emanating thereof are not allowed in Greece.

Public Policy

The first point raised by the court was a contradiction of the English order with established perceptions of Greek family law. By invoking Article 33 Greek Civil Code, i.e. the public policy defence in domestic Private International Law, the court held that Greek family law grants parental responsibility rights to the mother, if the child was born out of wedlock. In addition, the court stated that in the given situation, it was the biological mother who should be granted custody rights.

The second point raised by the court referred to the fundamental choice made by the domestic legislator and the Supreme Court, i.e. the prohibition of same-sex marriage. The public policy defence is the guarantor of this premise: Hence, an ontological change of a legal relationship within the country of destination, caused by the recognition of a foreign decision, affects state sovereignty. For a domestic standpoint, it is not acceptable to grant maternity rights to two women. It is also unbearable for the court that the birth of the child is a product of a same-sex marital relationship, which does not produce any legal effects in Greece.

In addition, the court held that the best interests of the child may not guarantee the preservation of a parental relationship with the biological mother, the latter being a situation not protected under Greek law. The bond worthy of protection emanates from constitutional provisions (equality / personality rights), the Fundamental Rights Charter, EU and ECHR standards. Consequently, the court ruled that the recognition and enforcement of the UK order would distort the legal pace of the country, because it is contrary to core domestic values and perceptions.

Assessment

The judgment follows a hard line under the strong influence of the harsh position taken by the Greek Supreme Court against same-sex couples. The factual situation is obviously not shaking the court’s foundation; even the best interests of the child did not motivate the court to soften its position. Hence, the child will have two mothers in the UK, and no mother in Greece.

What is also striking is the omission of the court to approach the matter from its European point of view. Out of the abundant material of legal scholarship, European and domestic case law concerning the matter, I will focus on the Coman case, which decided as follows:

In a situation in which a Union citizen has made use of his freedom of movement by moving to and taking up genuine residence, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 7(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, in a Member State other than that of which he is a national, and, whilst there, has created or strengthened a family life with a third-country national of the same sex to whom he is joined by a marriage lawfully concluded in the host Member State, Article 21(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the competent authorities of the Member State of which the Union citizen is a national from refusing to grant that third-country national a right of residence in the territory of that Member State on the ground that the law of that Member State does not recognise marriage between persons of the same sex.

The case, of course, was not concerned with recognition of foreign judgments, but the rationale seems to make it relevant in this respect as well.

There are two more instances available for the applicant to alter the landscape. A first sign of progress has been already reported. It will be interesting to follow the developments and to report in due time.

Mateusz Grochowski (European University Institute) and Katarzyna Południak-Gierz (Jagiellonian University) have posted EU Private International Law in Internet-Related Disputes: The Polish Case Law Approach on SSRN.

The abstract reads:

The paper examines the way Polish courts apply EU private international law (EU PIL) rules in the disputes concerning online context. The analysis seeks, in particular, to better understand the patterns recurring in the judicial reasoning and to map the typical circumstances of internet-related disputes pled before Polish courts. The paper attempts to cluster the existing case law and to trace the use made of EU PIL and CJEU decisions by Polish judges. It also aims to identify how the courts perceive specificity of internet-related disputes from the perspective of conflict of laws and how they understand specific goals of EU PIL (especially consumer protection). The text delves also into the cases where – despite encountering transnational elements – courts did not address conflict of laws issues. It attempts to indicate the most common instances of such omission and hence, to elucidate further the possible barriers to full application of EU PIL.

Chambre de l'instruction de la Cour d'appel de Rennes, 22 janvier 2021

Chambre de l'instruction de la Cour d'appel de Paris du 14 janvier 2021

Tribunal judiciaire de Draguignan, 26 janvier 2021

Pourvoi c/ chambre de l'instruction de la Cour d'appel de Versailles du 4 décembre 2020