Flux européens

Crocs / EUIPO - Gifi Diffusion (Chaussures)
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle
Le Tribunal confirme l’annulation de l’enregistrement du dessin de Crocs du fait que celui-ci a été divulgué au public avant son enregistrement

Crocs / EUIPO - Gifi Diffusion (Chaussures)
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle
Le Tribunal confirme l’annulation de l’enregistrement du dessin de Crocs du fait que celui-ci a été divulgué au public avant son enregistrement

TestBioTech / Commission
Environnement et consommateurs
Le Tribunal de l’UE annule la décision par laquelle la Commission a rejeté une demande visant à obtenir le réexamen de l’autorisation de mise sur le marché de produits contenant du soja génétiquement modifié

In one of my many ponderings on research I would like to do but might never get an opportunity do (hence my repeated sharing of potential PhD topics) I came across an excellent post by Daniel Jowell QC on the application of EU competition law in the UK courts post-Brexit.

The usual disclaimer of course applies (let’s wait and see what happens in the future Treaty between the UK and the EU) yet one important consideration has wider appeal: how does one apply the classic conflicts suggestion that courts do not apply foreign public law, or if they do, do so with great caution?: both out of comity with the foreign State; and to protect one’s own ordre public.

Competition law is often seen as being of quasi-public nature. Daniel justifiably suggests that post Rome II (in which competition law is assigned a specific (if complicated) lex causae), the UK will revert to its standard rules which increase the possibility that UK courts might refuse to apply foreign competition law, including the EU’s, on public policy grounds.

One to remember.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 4, Heading 4.6.2.

A case title which sounds a bit like a Scandinavian crimi – that’s because it almost is. In [2017] EWHC 2570 (Pat) Parainen Pearl et al v Jebsen Skipsrederi et al the facts amounted to claimants, who had purchased a vessel containing a pneumatic cement system patented by defendant (a company domiciled in Norway), seeking a declaration of non-infringement (DNI) of said patent. The purchase was somewhat downstream for the vessel had been sold a number of times before.

Claimants suggested jurisdiction for the UK courts for DNIs relating effectively to the whole of the EEA (at least under their reasoning; the specific countries sought were Sweden and Finland). For the English (and Welsh side of things jurisdiction is established without discussion under Article 5(3) Lugano, forum delicti. Reference was made to Wintersteiger and to Folien Fischer.

Claimants suggested that by the first sale to the original owner, defendants had ‘exhausted’ their intellectual property thus rendering the vessel into a good free to sold across the EEA. Should the court agree with that view, that finding of exhaustion would have to be accepted, still the argument went, across the EEA. Hence, an initial finding of exhaustion, given the need to apply EEA law the same in all EEA Member States, would have to be accepted by all other States and conversely this would give the English courts jurisdiction for pan-EEA DNIs.

Arnold J refers to among others Roche, Actavis v Eli Lilly, Marzillier. He holds that a potential finding by an English court of exhaustion may not necessarily be recognised and enforced by other courts in the EU or indeed EEA: it is not for the UK courts to presume that this will be so (despite their being little room for others in the EEA to refuse to enforce): ‘(Counsel for claimant) argued that.., on a proper application of European law, there could only be one answer as to whether or not the Defendants’ rights under the Patent in respect of the Vessel had been exhausted. In my view, however, it does not follow that it would be proper for this Court to exercise jurisdiction over matters that, under the scheme of the Lugano Convention, lie within the province of the courts of other Contracting States.’

Article 5(3) which works for UK jurisdiction, can then as it were not be used as a joinder-type (Article 6(1) Lugano; Article 8(1) Brussels I Recast) bridgehead for jurisdiction on further claims.

Conclusion: UK courts have no jurisdiction in so far as the DNIs extend beyond the UK designation of the Patent.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.2.4, Heading 2.2.12.1.

In [2017] EWCA Civ 1581 Taftnet v Bogolyubov the Court of Appeal held that an English court can allow addition of a claim which is time barred by the governing law identified by Rome I or Rome II. At 72 Longmore J notes ‘Under Article 12.1(d) of Rome I and Article 15(h) of Rome II, the applicable foreign law governs limitation of actions.’ However neither Rome I nor Rome II apply to matters of procedure (Article 1(3) in both of the Rome Regulations).

The Court of Appeal clearly takes Article 1(3) at face value by allowing amendment of the claim even if it thence includes a claim time barred under the lex causae: not to do so would endanger the consistent application of English procedural law. Article 12 cq 15 do not sit easily with Article 1(3). That has been clear from the start and it is an issue which needs sorting out. In the absence of such clarification, it is no surprise that the English courts should hold as Longmore J does here.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 3, Chapter 4.

 

Quentin Declève alerted me to the Air Cargo damages compensation case currently making its way through the Dutch courts. (I have previously reported on jurisdictional issues re such cases; searching the tag ‘damages’ should help the reader).

I have difficulty locating the actual judgment addressing the issue in this post: namely applicable law in follow-up competition cases. I have however located one or two previous judgments addressing the damages claims assignment issue in same. This web of litigation seems to be particularly knotty and any help by Dutch or other readers would be appreciated.

At issue is whether Rome II applies to the facts ratione temporis; if it does, how Article 6 should be applied, in particular: locus delicti commissi, locus damni and ‘affected markets”; and if it does not, how the previous Dutch residual connecting factor ought to apply.

A case of great relevance to competition law and fair trading cases.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 4, Heading 4.6.2.

 

A quick flag to those of you following consumer protection and the Directive (2002/58) on privacy and electronic communications. In Case C-673/17 Planet49 the Court of Justice is being asked to clarify to what extent a website which pre-ticks boxes in general terms and conditions (here: to share relevant personal data) is compatible with relevant EU laws.

File of the case here (in Dutch only).

Geert.

 

Cinkciarz.pl / EUIPO (€$)
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle MARQ
Le Tribunal de l’UE annule le refus d’enregistrer, en tant que marque de l’Union, une marque figurative incluant les symboles de devises « € » et « $ »

Thank you Michael Wise for alerting me to [2017] NSWSC 1759 Live Group v Rabbi Ulman in which Sackar J at the NSW Supreme Court displays both sensitivity and adroitness in addressing the relationship between a Beth Din (a Jewish court) and the courts in ordinary.

The case I imagine will be of interest for those studying church and state relations. It would seem to conclude that a Beth Din (or equivalents in other faiths) threat to impose religious sanctions on an unwilling party, will be considered contempt of the courts in ordinary and thus a no-go zone. However that as such the State courts should not hesitate to support arbitration through religious courts by compelling those who agreed to it in commercial relations, to submit to it. (Sackar J does highlight features of the particular case as not meeting natural justice requirements).

Geert.

 

 

 

 

SNCF Mobilités / Commission
Aide d'État
La France doit récupérer un montant de plus de 642 millions d’euros (hors intérêts) dans le cadre d’une aide d’État accordée à la société Sernam

flightright
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
La compagnie aérienne qui n’a réalisé dans un État membre que le premier segment d’un vol avec correspondance peut être attraite devant les juridictions de la destination finale située dans un autre État membre en vue d’une indemnisation pour cause de retard

Thank you Stephen Pittel for flagging 2017 SCC 33 Douez v Facebook Inc.  Stephen also discusses the forum non conveniens issue and I shall leave that side of the debate over to him. What is interesting for comparative purposes is the Supreme Court’s analysis of the choice of court clause in consumer contracts, which it refuses to enforce under public policy reasons, tied to two particular angles:

• ‘The burdens of forum selection clauses on consumers and their ability to access the court system range from added costs, logistical impediments and delays, to deterrent psychological effects. When online consumer contracts of adhesion contain terms that unduly impede the ability of consumers to vindicate their rights in domestic courts, particularly their quasi-constitutional or constitutional rights, public policy concerns outweigh those favouring enforceability of a forum selection clause.’ (emphasis added)

Infringement of privacy is considered such quasi-constitutional right.

• ‘Tied to the public policy concerns is the “grossly uneven bargaining power” of the parties. Facebook is a multi-national corporation which operates in dozens of countries. D is a private citizen who had no input into the terms of the contract and, in reality, no meaningful choice as to whether to accept them given Facebook’s undisputed indispensability to online conversations.’

With both angles having to apply cumulatively, consumers are effectively invited to dress up their suits as involving a quasi-constitutional issue, even if all they really want is their PSP to be exchanged, so to speak. I suspect however Canadian courts will have means of sorting the pretended privacy suits from the real ones.

A great judgment for the comparative binder (see also Jutta Gangsted and mine paper on forum laboris in the EU and the US here).

Geert. (Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.8.2.

 

Thank you colleagues at Hogan Lovells for flagging [2018] HKCFI 277 Supreme Tycoon in which the Hong Kong Court of First Instance ruled that the common law power to recognise and assist foreign insolvency proceedings extends to voluntary liquidations.

In so ruling, the court rejected the Privy Council obiter finding in Singularis. Shaun Langhorne, Chris Dobby & Mabel Koo (see the HL link above) highlight the Court’s rather convincing arguments in not following the Privy Council, including one I like a lot namely that the principle of modified universalism, the rationale underlying the common law power of assistance, and the purpose of cross-border insolvency assistance do not prima facie call for a distinction between compulsory and voluntary winding-up.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 5, Heading 5.1.

 

Achmea
DISC
La clause d’arbitrage incluse dans l’accord conclu entre les Pays-Bas et la Slovaquie sur la protection des investissements n’est pas compatible avec le droit de l’Union

SEGRO
Libre circulation des capitaux
Le fait de priver de leur droit d’usufruit des personnes n’ayant pas un lien de parenté proche avec les propriétaires de terres agricoles en Hongrie est contraire au droit de l’Union

Shoe Branding Europe / EUIPO - adidas (Position de deux bandes parallèles sur une chaussure)
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle
adidas peut s’opposer à l’enregistrement, comme marque de l’Union, de deux bandes parallèles sur des chaussures

John
SOPO
La prolongation d’un contrat de travail au-delà de l’âge normal de la retraite peut être limitée dans le temps

Sporting Odds
SERV
La réglementation hongroise sur l’octroi de concessions pour exploiter des casinos traditionnels et celle relative à l’organisation de jeux de casino en ligne ne sont pas compatibles avec le droit de l’Union

In C‑106/17 Hofsoe, the CJEU held late January that the Brussels I Recast Regulation jurisdictional rules for jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance, do not apply in case of assignment to a professional party. A B2C insurance contract assigned to a professional party therefore essentially turns into a B2B contract: the rules for protected categories are meant to protect weaker parties only. The Court also rejects a suggestion that the assignee ought to be able to prove that in fact it merits the forum actoris protection (on account of it being a sole insurance practitioner with little practice): the weakness is presumed and not subject to factual analysis.

Conclusion: at 43: ‘a person such as Mr Hofsoe, who carries out a professional activity recovering insurance indemnity claims against insurance companies, in his capacity as contractual assignee of such claims, should not benefit from the special protection constituted by the forum actoris.’

Predictability, and restrictive interpretation of the Regulation’s exceptions to the actor sequitur forum rei rule, are the classic lines along which the CJEU holds the case.

I for one continue to find it difficult to get my head round assignment not leading to the original obligation being transferred full monty; including its jurisdictional peculiarities.  The referring court in this respect (at 28) refers to the applicable national law which provides for as much:

‘In that regard, the referring court points out, under Article 509(2) of the Civil Code, ‘all rights associated with the claim …shall be transferred with the claim’. In those circumstances, the assignment of the claim should include that of the benefit of jurisdiction.’

Indeed in Schrems the Court emphasises the impact of the assignor’s rights on the rights of the assignee. By contrast in Hofsoe, the assignee’s qualities (here: as a professional) call the shots. The Court essentially pushes an autonomous and not necessarily consistent EU law on assignment here. In Rome I, the issue has triggered all sorts of discussions – not least the relevant BICL study and the EC 2016 response to same. Under Brussels I Recast, the discussion is more silent.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.8.