Advanced search
Publication Cover
Journal of Private International Law Volume 7, 2011 - Issue 3
Journal homepage
617
Views
5
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

Intellectual Property Rights Infringements in European Private International Law: Meeting the Requirements of Territoriality and Private International Law

Sophie Neumann PhD candidate and research associate at the Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Munich. I wish to thank Professor Dr Annette Kur and Mr Thomas Petz as well as the two anonymous referees for their helpful comments.
Pages 583-600 | Published online: 07 May 2015

  • Regulation EC 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), [2007] OJ L199/40.
  • Council Regulation EC 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I), [2001] OJ L12/1.
  • J Fawcett and P Torremans, Intellectual Property and Private International Law (Oxford University Press, 2nd edn, 2011), 151–52; P Mankowski, “Art 5(3) Brussels I Regulation”, in U Magnus and P Mankowski (eds), Brussels I Regulation (Sellier, 2007), 188 (para 200).
  • See J Basedow and A Metzger, “Lex loci protectionis europea”, in A Trunk, R Knieper and AG Svetlanov (eds), Russia in the International Context: Private International Law, Cultural Heritage, Intellectual Property, Harmonization of Laws (Berliner Wissenschaftsverlag, 2004), 153, 155–56.
  • J Drexl, “Internationales Immaterialgüterrecht”, in R Rixecker and FJ Säcker (eds), Münchener Kommentar zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch, Vo l 11, Internationales Privatrecht, Internationales Wirtschaftsrecht (CH Beck, 5th edn, 2010), 1344, 1355–56 (para 12).
  • See J Basedow, “Foundations of Private International Law in Intellectual Property”, in J Base-dow, T Kono and A Metzger (eds), Intellectual Property in the Global Arena (Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 3, 28; R Fentiman, “Choice of Law and Intellectual Property”, in J Drexl and A Kur (eds), Intellectual Property and Private International Law – Heading for the Future (Hart Publishing, 2005), 129, 138–43.
  • Cf the presentation and analysis of the relevant private international law interests in Fentiman, ibid, 139–44 and M Pertegás Sender, Cross-Border Enforcement of Patent Rights (Oxford University Press, 2002), 211–15.
  • J Kropholler, Internationales Privatrecht (Mohr Siebeck, 6th edn, 2006), 16–21 and 24–26; B Audit, Droit international privé (Economica, 5th edn, 2008), 86–88.
  • See Cheshire, North and Fawcett, Private International Law (Oxford University Press, 14th edn, 2008), 766–68; Dicey, Morris and Collins, The conflict of Laws (Sweet & Maxwell, 14th edn, 2006), 1892–1906; Kropholler, ibid, 514–19 and 522–33; Audit, ibid, 661–67.
  • Commission of the European Communities, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), [2004] OJ C96/8. The motivation of the choice of the lex loci protectionis will be analysed below.
  • For example: Austria: Österreichischer Oberster Gerichtshof, 14 January 1986, GRUR Int 1986, 735 interpreting Art 34(1) of the Austrian Private International Law Statute as referring to the lex loci protectionis; Belgium: Art 93(1) of the Belgian Private International Law Code; Germany, Bundesgerichtshof 17 June 1992, GRUR 1992, 697, see also Drexl, supra n 5, 1344, 1437 (paras 176–77); Italy: Art 54 of the Italian Private International Law Statute interpreted as referring to the lex loci protectionis, see S Bariatti, “The Law Applicable to the Infringement of IP Rights under the Rome II Regulation”, in S Bariatti (ed), Litigating Intellectual Property Rights Disputes Cross-border: EU Regulations; ALI Principles, CLIP Project (CEDAM, 2010), 63, 64.
  • For example: England: s 11(1) of the English Private International Law Statute, as examples from the case law may be cited: Def Lepp Music v Stuart-Brown [1986] RPC 273 and Pearce v Ove Arup Partnership Ltd [2000] ch 403, see also Pertegás-Sender, supra n 7, 243–44; France: Cour de cassation, 22 December 1959, receuil Dalloz 1960, 93 (“le chant du monde”), Cour de cassation, 5 March 2002, Bulletin 2002 I no 75, 58 (“Sisro”), French doctrine, however, tended to claim the application of the lex loci protectionis, see eg G Holleaux, recueil Dalloz 1960, 93 annotation to the decision of the Cour de cassation from 22 December 1959 and Audit, supra n 8, 645–47; Portugal: Art 45 Código Civil, see D Moura Vicente, La propriété intellectuelle en droit international privé (Martin Nijhoff Publishers, 2009), 333–34.
  • 13 Art 67(1) of the Greek Copyright Act.
  • Commission of the European Communities, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), 20.
  • Hamburg Group for Private International Law, “Comments on the European Commission's Draft Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations” (2003) 67 Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht 1, 21–24.
  • Commission of the European Communities, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), 20.
  • N Boschiero, “Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights, A Commentary on Article 8 of the Rome II Regulation” (2007) 9 Yearbook of Private International Law 87, 91–94 and 112; Drexl, supra n 5, 1344, 1418–20 (paras 143–46).
  • See, for example, M van Eechoud, “Alternatives to the Lex Protectionis as the Choice-of-Law rule for Initial Ownership of Copyright”, in Drexl and Kur, supra n 6, 289, 289–306; H Schack, “The Law Applicable to (Unregistered) IP Rights After Rome II“, in S Leible and A Ohly (eds), Intellectual Property and Private International Law (Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 79, 82–83 and 93–94.
  • See, for example, M van Eechoud, Choice of Law in Copyright and Related Rights, Alternatives to the Lex Protectionis (doctoral thesis 2003, published in a commercial version by Kluwer Law International), 125–27 (for the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works); Vicente, supra n 12, 227 (for the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works) and 262–63 (for the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property).
  • Drexl, supra n 5, 1344, 1353 (para 7).
  • Ibid, 1344, 1357 (para 14).
  • See Fentiman, supra n 6, 129, 140 and 148.
  • See E Ulmer, Intellectual Property Rights and the conflict of Laws (Kluwer, 1978), 34–36 (for copyrights) and 68–70 (for industrial property rights); Basedow and Metzger, supra n 4, 153, 155; Vicente, supra n 12, 337; Drexl, supra n 5, 1344, 1437 and 1448 (paras 178 and 204).
  • See Basedow, supra n 6, 3, 29; Basedow and Metzger, supra n 4, 153, 155; M Leistner, “The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations Arising from an Infringement of National or Community IP Rights”, in Leible and Ohly, supra n 18, 97, 99–100.
  • Art 110(2) of the Swiss Private International Law Act allows the parties to choose the law applicable to claims arising from the infringement of intellectual property rights.
  • See A Kur, “Are There Any Common European Principles of Private International Law with Regard to Intellectual Property?”, in Leible and Ohly, supra n 18, 1, 8–9; Leistner, supra n 24, 97, 105–106; Vicente, supra n 12, 336–37.
  • Bariatti, supra n 11, 63, 74; Fawcett and Torremans, supra n 3, 807; M Pertegás, “Intellectual Property and Choice of Law Rules”, in A Malatesta (ed), The Unification of Choice of Law Rules on Torts and Other Non-Contractual Obligations in Europe (CEDAM, 2006), 221, 237–38.
  • Bariatti, supra n 11, 63, 74.
  • See Basedow and Metzger, supra n 4, 153, 161; Pertegás Sender, supra n 7, 269–70.
  • See Drexl, supra n 5, 1344, 1356 (para 12).
  • See A Metzger, “Applicable Law under the CLIP Principles”, in Basedow, Kono and Metzger, supra n 6, 157, 171; Basedow and Metzger, supra n 4, 153, 159; Pertegás Sender, supra n 7, 252.
  • Pertegás Sender, ibid, 269–70.
  • Fawcett and Torremans, supra n 3, 807–808; Pertegás, supra n 27, 221, 238; Pertegás Sender, ibid, 212 and 263.
  • Pertegás Sender, ibid, 212 and 224.
  • Drexl, supra n 5, 1344, 1353 (para 6); see also the solutions adopted by the Member States prior to the Rome II Regulation cited at n 11 and the solutions adopted outside the European Union: Art 110(1) of the Swiss Private International Law Act and most recently Art 50 of the Chinese Private International Law Act.
  • See Pertegás, supra n 27, 221, 236–37; Pertegás Sender, supra n 7, 220–21; Boschiero, supra n 17 107–11; Vicente, supra n 12, 342–44. See also the solution adopted by Art 110(2) of the Swiss Private International Law Act allowing the parties to choose the law applicable to claims arising from the infringement of intellectual property rights.
  • See Vicente, ibid, 339.
  • ECJ, 30 November 1976, Case 21/76, Handelswekerij GJ Bier BV v Mines de Potasse d'Alsace SA [1976] ECR 1735, confirmed for the Brussels I Regulation in ECJ, 16 July 2009, Case C-189/08, Zuid-Chemie BV v Philippo's Mineralenfabriek NV/SA [2009] ECR I-6917; Mankowski, supra n 3, 190–91 (para 203).
  • P de Miguel Asensio, “Cross-Border Adjudication of Intellectual Property Rights and Competition between Jurisdictions” (2007) 16 Annali italiani del diritto d'autore, della cultura e dello spettacolo 105, 107; Vicente, supra n 12, 382–83 and 389–91.
  • See Vicente, ibid, 391–96 and 408–13; B Ubertazzi, “Intellectual Property Rights and Exclusive (Subject-Matter) Jurisdiction” [2011] Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil 199, 201–204.
  • A Metzger, “Jurisdiction in Cases Concerning Intellectual Property Infringements on the Internet – Brussels-I-Regulation, ALI-Principles and Max-Planck Proposals”, in Leible and Ohly, supra n 18, 251, 253; L Lundstedt, “Jurisdiction and the Principle of Territoriality in Intellectual Property Law: Has the Pendulum Swung Too Far in the Other Direction?” (2001) 32 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 124 and 127–28; Vicente, supra n 12, 389–91.
  • Asensio, supra n 39, 110; Lundstedt, ibid.
  • See Vicente, supra n 12, 382–83.
  • Metzger, supra n 41, 251, 258–59; C Heinze, Einstweiliger Rechtsschutz im europäischen Immaterialgü-terrecht (Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 221–22 and 234.
  • Asensio, supra n 39, 123; Heinze, ibid, 224; Vicente, supra n 12, 396–98; contra Mankowski, supra n 3, 201 (para 227) and A Nuyts, “Suing at the Place of Infringement: The Application of Article 5(3) of Regulation 44/2001 to IP Matters and Internet Disputes”, in A Nuyts (ed), International Litigation in Intellectual Property and Information Technology (Wolters Kluwer, 2008), 105, 116–21.
  • See Mankowski, supra n 3, 195–96 (paras 214–15).
  • H Schack, “Internationale Urheber-, Marken-und Wettbewerbsrechtsverletzungen im Internet – Internationales Privatrecht” [2000] MultiMedia und Recht 59, 64; Heinze, supra n 44 231–32.
  • Boschiero, supra n 17, 105.
  • The criteria advanced by the ECJ (ECJ, 7 March 1995, Case C-68/93, Fiona Shevill, Ixora Tranding Inc, Chequepoint SARL and Chequepoint International Ltd v Presse Alliance SA, [1995] ECR I-415, confirmed and complemented in light of infringements of personality rights committed via the internet (ECJ 25 October 2011, Joined Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10, eDate Advertising GmbH v X and Olivier Martinez and Robert Martinez v MGN Limited)) in order to localise the place where the immaterial damage occurred for the infringement of personality rights do not necessarily claim application to the infringement of intellectual property rights. On the one hand, unlike intellectual property rights, personality rights are not subject to a territorial limitation to a particular state, so that a natural localisation in that state is not apparent and criteria need to be found in order to determine the place where the damage occurred for the purposes of infringement jurisdiction under Art 5(3). On the other hand, the immaterial goods protected and affected in case of infringement of intellectual property rights can be perceived independently and detached from the person of the rightholder, unlike in case of infringement of personality rights the person's reputation.
  • See Fawcett and Torremans, supra n 3, 161–62; Asensio, supra n 39, 123; Heinze, supra n 44, 234–35.
  • See Metzger, supra n 41, 261.
  • ECJ, 27 September 1988, Case 189/87, Athanasios Kalfelis v Bankhaus Schröder, Münchmeyer, Hengst und Co [1988] ECR 5565, confirmed for the Brussels I Regulation in ECJ, 16 July 2009, Case C-189/08, Zuid-Chemie BV v Philippo's Mineralenfabriek NV/SA [2009] ECR I-6917.
  • European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast), [2011] OJ C94/5.
  • ECJ, 30 November 1976, Case 21/76, Handelswekerij GJ Bier BV v Mines de Potasse d'Alsace SA [1976] ECR 1735; Lundstedt, supra n 41, 132.
  • See Lundstedt, ibid, 138.
  • ECJ, 7 March 1995, Case C-68/93, Fiona Shevill, Ixora Tranding Inc, Chequepoint SARL and Cheque-point International Ltd v Presse Alliance SA [1995] ECR I-415. According to the Shevill jurisprudence, consolidation of infringement claims concerning the damages in their entirety seems to remain possible before the courts of the state where the event giving rise to the damage occurred even if this forum was not to coincide with the general jurisdiction forum under Art 2 of the Brussels I Regulation. See further Mankowski, supra n 3, 192–94 arguing in favour of a general restriction of jurisdiction of the courts where the damage occurred under Art 5(3). The Shevill jurisprudence has been recently adapted to respond to the particularities of infringements committed via the internet (ECJ, 25 October 2011, Joined Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10, eDate Advertising GmbH v X and Olivier Martinez and Robert Martinez v MGN Limited). In light of the sound administration of justice and predictability of the fora, the ECJ opened an additional forum with jurisdiction regarding the entirety of the damage caused at the place where the alleged victim has his centre of interests whereas jurisdiction of the courts of the state in the territory of which content placed online is or has been accessible remains restricted to the damage caused in that state.
  • Heinze, supra n 44, 234–35.
  • Pertegás Sender, supra n 7, 215, 226 and 252–53; Metzger, supra n 31, 157, 171.
  • See supra nn 11 and 12: Art 34(1) of the Austrian Private International Law Statute and the decision of the French Cour de cassation, 22 December 1959, receuil Dalloz 1960, 93 (“le chant du monde”) were interpreted as referring to the lex loci protectionis.
  • See Kur, supra n 26, 7–9.
  • See Fentiman, supra n 6, 137.
  • The CLIP (European Max Planck Group on conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property) Principles (final text accessible on www.cl-ip.eu) provide an explicit exception to infringement jurisdiction in Art 2:202 in cases where the minimum contact to the forum usually based on the infringement is not met, ie if the alleged infringer has not acted in that state to initiate or further the infringement and her/his activity cannot reasonably be seen as having been directed to that state. They further provide a corrective provision operating at the substantive law level in Art 3:602 according to which a court applying the lex loci protectionis should only find for infringement if the alleged infringer has acted to initiate or further the infringement in the state for which protection is sought or the allegedly infringing activity has substantial effect within or is directed to the State for which protection is sought.
  • See Mankowski, supra n 3, 201 (para 227).
  • See Ulmer, supra n 23, 14 referring in this regard also to Art 5ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.
  • See Fawcett and Torremans, supra n 3, 818–20. See further the solutions proposed by §321 ALI Principles (Principles of the American Law Institute Governing Jurisdiction, Choice of Law, and Judgments in Transnational Disputes in Intellectual Property, American Law Institute Publishers, 2008) and Art 3:603 of the CLIP (European Max Planck Group on conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property) Principles (final text accessible on www.cl-ip.eu) for ubiquitous infringement permitting to apply one single law presenting the closest connection with the infringement.
  • See, for example, the decision of Gerechtshof's Gravenhage, 28 September 2010, Case 105.000.110/01 (accessible on www.rechtspraak.nl, LJN: BN8795) applying the lex loci protec-tionis rule but assuming similarities of the different laws to be applied to Dutch law.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.