Flux européens

C-433/16 BMW v Acacia follows a similar pattern as yesterday’s post on the Trademark Regulation. In Community designs, too, intellectual-property specific secondary law varies the overall jurisdictional regime of Brussels I (Recast), here: Regulation 6/2002 on Community designs. Reference is best made to the judgment itself for readers to appreciate how exactly the general regime is part-incorporated.

In general, the jurisdictional rule for Community designs incorporates less of the general regime of the Brussels I (Recast) than its Trademark Regulation. (Current) Article 24(4)’s exclusive jurisdictional rule for instance is made inapplicable for designs. So too is (now) Article 7(2)’s rule on tort.

Acacia brought a proactive action against BMW before the Tribunale di Napoli (District Court of Naples (Italy)) seeking a declaration of non-infringement of Community designs, of which BMW is the proprietor, for alloy rims for automobile wheels, as well as a declaration of abuse of a dominant market position and unfair competition by BMW. The action clearly anticipated counter action by BMW. Acacia also sought an injunction to prevent BMW from taking any action hindering the marketing of the replica rims. (Of note generally is that not all Member States allow for actions in non-infringement. See here for a review of the implications of same).

Regulation 6/2002 however provides that actions for declaration of non-infringement (Article 81(b) of that regulation) may be brought, where the defendant is domiciled in an EU Member State, before the Community design courts of that Member State alone. These courts are specifically assigned by the Member States. Article 7(2)’s rule on tort as noted does not apply and the CJEU does not take long to hold exactly that. Declaration of abuse of a dominant position and of unfair competition that are connected to actions for declaration of non-infringement of Community design, likewise cannot be based on Article 7(2) Brussels I Recast.

A declaration of non-infringement under Article 81(b) of the Community design Regulation must, when the defendant is domiciled in an EU Member State, be brought before the Community design courts of that Member State, except where there is choice of court or voluntary appearance (Article 25 cq 26 of the Recast), or within the rules of lis pendens and related actions. As for Article 26, voluntary appearance cannot be deduced from the fact that the defendant appears to contest jurisdiction, even if at the same time they also argue to the merits: this is held again by the CJEU in line with earlier case-law.

The Court’s judgment is neither shocking nor surprising. It is good however to be reminded of the jurisdictional rules on intellectual property.

Geert.

Jurisdiction in intellectual property cases is notoriously complex and frankly opaque, in the case of the EU exacerbated by the impact of secondary law. My colleague Marie-Christine Janssens has a great overview in the Belgian reports at the Congress of Washington of the International Academy of Comparative Law. Brussels: Bruylant, 611-652.

At stake in C-617/15 Hummel v Nike was Regulation 207/2009, in the meantime superseded by Regulation 2015/2424.  Article 94 of the former, entitled ‘Application of Regulation … No 44/2001’, contains rules on jurisdiction and procedure in legal actions relating to EU trade marks. It states that ‘Unless otherwise specified in this Regulation, Regulation … No 44/2001 shall apply to proceedings relating to [EU] trade marks and applications for [EU] trade marks, as well as to proceedings relating to simultaneous and successive actions on the basis of [EU] trade marks and national trade marks.’ Article 94 essentially varies, to some degree, the jurisdictional rules of the Brussels I (now Recast) Regulation.

Now, what needed specific interpretation was Article 97’s

‘1.      Subject to the provisions of this Regulation as well as to any provisions of Regulation … No 44/2001 applicable by virtue of Article 94, proceedings in respect of the actions and claims referred to in Article 96 shall be brought in the courts of the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled or, if he is not domiciled in any of the Member States, in which he has an establishment. 

2.       If the defendant is neither domiciled nor has an establishment in any of the Member States, such proceedings shall be brought in the courts of the Member State in which the plaintiff is domiciled or, if he is not domiciled in any of the Member States, in which he has an establishment.

3.      If neither the defendant nor the plaintiff is so domiciled or has such an establishment, such proceedings shall be brought in the courts of the Member State where [EUIPO] has its seat.

More specifically, the notion of ‘establishment’: Under which circumstances is a legally distinct second-tier subsidiary, with its seat in an EU Member State, of an undertaking that itself has no seat in the EU to be considered as an “establishment” of that undertaking.

Nike, which has its seat in the US, is the ultimate holding company of the Nike Group, which sells sports goods across the world. Nike Retail, which has its seat in the Netherlands, also belongs to that group. Nike Retail operates the website on which Nike goods are advertised and offered for sale, in Germany in particular. In addition to online sales on that website, Nike goods are sold in Germany through independent dealers supplied by Nike Retail. Wholesale or retail sales in Germany are not directly conducted by the companies in the Nike Group.

Nike Deutschland GmbH, which has its seat in Frankfurt am Main and is not a party to the main proceedings, is a subsidiary of Nike Retail. Nike Deutschland does not have its own website and does not sell goods to end consumers or intermediaries. However, it negotiates contracts between intermediaries and Nike Retail, and supports Nike Retail in connection with advertising and the performance of contracts. Nike Deutschland also provides aftersales service for end consumers.  Hummel Holding claims that some Nike products, in particular basketball shorts, infringe its trade mark and that most of the infringements took place in Germany. It brought an action against Nike and Nike Retail before the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Regional Court, Düsseldorf, Germany), which ruled that it had jurisdiction on the ground that Nike Deutschland was an establishment of Nike, but dismissed the action on the merits. This judgment is now being appealed.

The CJEU first of all (at 22 ff) warns for caution in the conjoined application of concepts used in both the Trademark Regulation and the Brussels I (Recast). The Trademark Regulation is, so the Court says specifically, lex specialis and one cannot therefore assume the same words mean the same thing. Readers of this blog are aware that I always give the CJEU thumbs-up when it mentions this (such as in Kainz), however the Court itself very regularly ignores its own instruction when the discussion involves the application of Brussels and Rome.

The point of Article 97, the Court notes (at 37) is to ensure that a court within the EU always has jurisdiction to hear and determine cases concerning the infringement and validity of an EU trade mark. In line with the AG’s suggestion the Court consequently opts for a broad interpretation of the concept, holding that the concept requires (1) a certain real and stable presence, from which commercial activity is pursued, as manifested by the presence of personnel and material equipment. (2) In addition, that establishment must have the appearance of permanency to the outside world, such as the extension of a parent body. However what is not required is for that establishment to have legal personality. Third parties must thus be able to rely on the appearance created by an establishment acting as an extension of the parent body. Furthermore and importantly, it is, in principle, irrelevant for the purposes of Article 97(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 whether the establishment thereby determined has participated in the alleged infringement.

A word of warning evidently: given the Court’s emphasis on the context of Article 97, with a view to its wide application, readers must not be tempted to read the judgment’s view on the concept of ‘establishment’ as applying across the board in EU conflicts law, let alone EU law as a whole.

Geert.

 

…

Erzberger
DISC
La loi allemande sur la cogestion des salariés est compatible avec le droit de l’Union

Commission / Breyer
Droit institutionnel
La Commission ne peut pas refuser de donner accès aux mémoires des États membres qu’elle détient, au seul motif qu’il s’agit de documents afférents à une procédure juridictionnelle

Expect a series of blog postings in the next few weeks on developments which occurred a few weeks or even months back. I have been squirreling away a series of judgments and other developments, with a view to exam season. Some of them I did use in my exam papers – some of them I did not.

Cooper v. Tokyo Electric Power [plaintiffs in the case are a group of service members in the U.S. Navy who were deployed to Operation Tomodachi, a relief effort in the immediate aftermath of the massive earthquake and tsunami; they allege they were exposed to radiation during the deployment] by the US Court of Appeals, ninth circuit, is a direct (and rare in its directness) example of how jurisdictional rules are used to help co-ordinate a country’s diplomatic efforts. In this particular case, the Court gives direct support to the State Department’s view that in order for others to be encouraged to accede to the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (“CSC”), its main jurisdictional rule (granting exclusive jurisdiction to the country of the locus delicti commissi) must not be achievable via an application of comity in the US courts. For further background and overview see  Elina Teplinsky, and Meghan Claire Hammond here.

That plaintiffs are US citisens plays a major role in the court ruling out forum non conveniens.

In some of the corporate social responsibility /alien tort statute cases that I have reported on in the blog (particularly, Rio Tinto), foreign policy openly plays a role, too, and in Kiobel itself, in the lower courts, the impact of jurisdiction on US foreign policy was debated, too. It is always refreshing to see courts highlight the issue openly. For in many jurisdictions, such obvious impacts are brushed under the carpet.

Geert.

 

 

 

The European Court of Justice held last week in C‑368/16, Assens Havn. It confirmed privity of choice of court in the event of subrogation of the victim in the rights of the insured. The victim is not bound by choice of court between insurer and tortfeasor:

At 41: ‘The extension to victims of the constraints of agreements on jurisdiction based on the combined provisions of Articles 13 and 14 of Regulation No 44/2001 could compromise the objective pursued by Chapter II, Section 3, thereof, namely to protect the economically and legally weaker party.

That the CJEU confirms privity of contractual choice of court is no surprise: see most recently Leventis. In the case of insurance contracts the issue is slightly less obvious for unlike in the case of consumers and employees, the legal presumption of weakness often does not represent commercial reality.

Whether the subrogated party can make use of the choice of court clause in the underlying contract was not sub judice in the judgment.

Geert.

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

 

BASF Grenzach / ECHA
Recherche, informations, éducation, statistiques
Le Président du Tribunal de l’UE rejette la demande en référé de BASF Grenzach au sujet du triclosan, un conservateur pour produits cosmétiques

Bolagsupplysningen et Ilsjan
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
L’avocat général Bobek estime que l’entreprise qui prétend que ses droits de la personnalité ont été violés par la publication d’informations sur Internet peut demander en justice réparation de l’intégralité du préjudice dans l’État membre dans lequel est situé le centre de ses intérêts

Commission / Espagne
Liberté d'établissement
Pour avoir tardé à libéraliser le secteur des services portuaires de manutention de marchandises, l’Espagne est condamnée à payer une somme forfaitaire de trois millions d’euros

The Private International Law Group at the School of Law of Carlos III University of Madrid organises an international congress on matrimonial property regimes and property consequences of registered partnerships.

The event will take place on 16 and 17 November 2017.

Young researchers are invited to send their papers in Spanish or English by 20 September 2017 to mjcastel@der-pr.uc3m.es.

Further information available here.

The Electronic CISG, edited by / a cura di Ingeborg Schwenzer, Lisa Spagnolo, Eleven International Publishing, 2017, ISBN 9789462367517, pp. 136, EUR 60.

In this book the authors engage with the interface between the rise of electronic communications and the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). The contributors consider the opportunities, challenges and problems in adapting the CISG to deal with issues arising from the information age. In revisiting the CISG in light of technological advances that have changed the world since it was drafted, this book collects chapters dealing with the intersection between the CISG, the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce (MLEC), and the United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts 2005 (e-CC). A detailed comparison of their respective provisions is provided in one, while the other gives an insight into the policies behind their development, including critical commentary and recommendations. In addition, it covers the inclusion of electronic standard terms pursuant to the CISG, the CISG’s effect on the domestic law of electronic transactions in the Middle East, on how communications by social media may become binding representations under the CISG, and whether it is time to update the CISG Advisory Council Opinion No.1.

France / Commission
Aide d'État
Le Tribunal confirme que l’apport en capital et les mesures de privatisation adoptés par la France en faveur de la SNCM sont des aides d’État illégales et incompatibles avec le marché intérieur

Air Berlin
Transport
Les frais d’annulation demandés par les compagnies aériennes peuvent être contrôlés au regard de leur caractère abusif

Toshiba / Commission
Concurrence
La Cour confirme l’amende de 61,44 millions d’euros infligée à Toshiba (dont 4,65 millions d’euros à titre solidaire avec Mitsubishi) pour sa participation à l’entente sur le marché des appareillages de commutation à isolation gazeuse

Fries
Transport
La limite d’âge de 65 ans prévue par le droit de l’Union pour les pilotes dans le transport aérien commercial de passagers, de fret ou de courrier est valide

The Belgian Council of State (the highest administrative court) has annulled the Flemish waste agency’s export permit in the so-called ‘Slufter’ case, involving large quantities of toxic dredging spoil (for the aficionados: classified as EURAL 17 05 05*; ia with heavy doses of tributyltin – TBT) dredged from the port of Antwerp. The case made by applicants was that the waste would be disposed of in the port of Rotterdam’s ‘slufter’ by way of mere dumping, as opposed to processing ‘at home’ in the Flemish region.

At issue was Article 11 of the Waste shipments Regulation 1013/2006, which allows Member States of export to object to planned shipments of waste destined for disposal. Applicants’ case was that the Flemish waste agency – OVAM should have disallowed the shipment on the basis of the proximity and the self-sufficiency principles. OVAM however pointed out that even if in optimal circumstances, processing in Flanders could lead to higher rates of recovery of the waste, much of it would still simply have to be landfilled. Importantly, it preferred disposal in the Slufter on the basis that the logistics chain was much shorter: load up, transport, dump. As opposed to load up, transport to processing facility for partial recovery (involving three separate processes); load-up of the solid waste left; transport and dump.

The Council of State ruled at the end of May that this decision by OVAM, in particular the reliance of the extent of the logistics chain, lacks proper assessment of the Best Available Technologies for dredging spoil, hence leading to insufficient assessment of the proximity and self-sufficiency principles. The ruling is relevant also with a view to the remainder of the spoil that will continue to be dredged.

For easy of reference (for those wishing to locate copy of the ruling): case numbers are 238220 -238224 included).

Geert.

Uber France
Rapprochement des législations ETAB SERV MARI
Selon l’avocat général Szpunar, les États membres peuvent interdire et réprimer pénalement l’exercice illégal de l’activité de transport dans le cadre du service UberPop sans notifier au préalable le projet de loi à la Commission

Jean-Sylvestre Bergé, Genevieve Helleringer, Operating Law in a Global Context – Comparing, Combining and Prioritising, Edward Elgar, 2017, pp. 256, ISBN 9781785367328, GBP 80

Lawyers have to adapt their reasoning to the increasingly global nature of the situations they deal with. Often, rules formulated in a national, international or European environment must all be jointly applied to a given case. This book seeks to make explicit the analysis the lawyer engages in every time he or she is confronted by the operation of several laws in different contexts. This reasoning is organised according to a basic three-step approach, consisting of the comparison (Part 1), combination (Part 2) and, finally, ordering or ‘prioritization’ (Part 3) of the methods and solutions of national, international and European law to be used to solve the case. The book conveys in detail how the law is operated through a wide range of concrete examples cutting across domains including criminal law, contract law, fundamental rights, internal market, international trade and procedure. This book focuses on the needs of a global lawyer who must reach conclusions in a pluralistic context. Illustrations from the domestic case law of the UK, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain, France and the US are used to demonstrate how lawyers can combine different contexts to improve their legal reasoning. Operating Law in a Global Context will appeal to lawyers in these jurisdictions and beyond, as well as to students training to practice in a global environment.

A website has recently been launched in the framework of the EU-funded Jean Monnet Module on European Civil Procedure in a Comparative and Transnational Perspective taught by Professor Albert Henke at the University of Milan. Its purpose is “to keep academics, professionals, students and all those involved in cross-border litigation in Europe updated about current trends and recent developments in legislation, case law and literature in this area, as well as to create an open educational resource”. The website is called European Civil Procedure, and can be found here. 

È da qualche tempo accessibile on-line un sito web realizzato nell’ambito del modulo Jean Monnet su European Civil Procedure in a Comparative and Transnational Perspective di cui è titolare, all’Università Statale di Milano, il prof. Albert Henke. Il sito si rivolge a quanti si occupano di diritto processuale civile internazionale da studiosi, professionisti e studenti, e si propone di fornire aggiornamenti sugli sviluppi normativi, giurisprudenziali e di dottrina in questa materia, oltre che fungere da risorsa formativa aperta. Il sito si chiama European Civil Procedure e si trova a questo indirizzo.

Thank you to both Patrick Wauthelet and Arie van Hoe for forwarding a copy of the judgment of the Brussels commercial court in Parfip. Please pop me an e-mail should you like a copy. The judgment is textbook application of CJEU precedent, including of course Eurofood and Interedil. Fully respecting the presumption of individual COMI in the case of a group of companies, the judgment refers to ia German and French precedent in rebuking the presumption. Not only were the companies effectively run from Brussels, notwithstanding non-Belgian seat for some of them; to third parties it was also clear that this was the case.

The judgment also confirms a narrow interpretation of the exception for ‘credit institutions’.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 5, Heading 5.6.1.2.Heading 5.6.1.2.4.