• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Dr. Christoph Hölscher
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

BMW vs. Acacia: Change of jurisdiction through the back door failed

22. August 2017

The Italian rim manufacturer Acacia and the German car maker BMW are arguing in court for the determination of non-infringement of Community designs registered by BMW. Moreover the jurisdiction of the Court must be clarified. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has now decided in the preliminary ruling.

The Italian plaintiff Acacia asked an Italian court to assess the non-infringement (DNI) of certain Community designs registered by Defendant BMW. At court BMW argued that by no means an Italian court was responsible, but a German one, since BMW has its company headquarter in Germany. Furthermore the rims manufactured by Acacia for BMW models can indeed infringe the registered Community designs. Therefore no non-infringement (DNI) could be assessed.

Acacia went into the offensive, as the Italian rim manufacturer itself requested DNI and brought the case directly to a local court. As a result, Acacia asked the German car maker to reply directly to the Italian court with a statement. Thus the Italian rim builders could hope to divert the jurisdiction of the court automatically through the back door to Italy. Perhaps Acacia also hoped that the domestic courts might be more open-minded to approve DNI against BMW.

 

Change of jurisdiction against BMW through the back door failed

BMW_RimsThe ECJ ruled in its judgment that BMW’s first sentence of defense to the Italian court does not mean that BMW regards the court as competent. Since defendant BMW has its company headquarter in Germany, the case should be debated at a German court.

Acacia, on the other hand, argued with Article 80 (“Community design courts”) (1) of Regulation No 6/2002 and Article 81. It states that Community designs courts are solely responsible for actions for finding non-infringement of Community designs where national law permits them. However, the court did not admit the argument in this case. The Court also denied the question whether the same court, together with the negative application for a claim, could also deal with applications such as the application for abuse of a dominant position and unfair competition on the same case.

 

Court confirms Lex specialis in the jurisdiction of design regulations

The court also clarifies that it expressly rejects the rightly misused selection of the courts by the plaintiff (“forum shopping”) and confirms the status of a lex specialis in the jurisdiction of design regulations. This judgment is also relevant to other German car owners: Porsche (Az. I ZR 226/14, Case C-435/16) and Audi (RG 1080/2015, Case C-397/16) also meet with Acacia at court.

 

Controversy about the Community patterns of rims: repair clause applicable?

rims_BMW_Acacia

The actual dispute over the Community design patterns of the rims is still by no means clear. But it will now take place at a German court. In the course of this process, further questions have to be clarified. The Acacia rims are replicas of light alloy rims produced by car manufacturers and are marketed under the Wheels Spare Parts (WSP) Italy brand. Acacia is of the opinion that their replicated rims fall under the “repair clause” when they touch a BMW community pattern. Therefore, Acacia could request DNIs.

The “repair clause” in accordance with Article 110 (1) CDR in the Community Designs Regulation of the EU offers exceptions to design protection in the spare parts market if the corresponding spare part is part of a complex product and this spare part is absolutely neccessary to keep the product design as a whole – also in the Repair. It applies exclusively and only to European Community designs, the German design right does not contain any “repair clause”.

The defendant BMW rejects this. The scope of application according to the so-called repair clause pursuant to Art. 110 para. 1 CDR is restricted to those components whose original appearance is absolutely necessary for repair –  so called “must match” in the jargon. But with rims this is exactly not the case. Although important in the overall design, the customer is offered various variants of rims which are also changeable at any time.

 

 

Do you want to protect your Community Design?

We can help you with that!

Let us arrange a phone call – together we will work out the right strategy for your (Community) Design:

CAT-call_en

 

Sources:

Text: Curia – Judgement of the Court (Second Chamber) from 13 July 2017

Photos: RSunset / Pixabay.com / CC0 License  || Free-Photos / Pixabay.com / CC0 License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconDesign Law Tag iconAcacia,  BMW

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Design Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022
  • EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible 24. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

17. February 2022
China joins the Hague Agreement

China joins the Hague Agreement

4. February 2022
Grill bowl design: patent drawings against design

Grill bowl design: patent drawings against design

31. January 2022
BGH Radiator Design: Right to be heard

BGH Radiator Design: Right to be heard

4. January 2022
Classifications 2022: IPC, Nice and Locarno

Classifications 2022: IPC, Nice and Locarno

19. November 2021
Napkin vs. table linen design: Antique spell book refutes Individual character

Napkin vs. table linen design: Antique spell book refutes Individual character

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Torhaus Westhafen
Speicherstrasse 59
D – 60327 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]