• 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
      • Clara Elinor Grünewald
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

ECJ: no national courts in injunctions against community designs

22. November 2019

The proximity and efficiency of the courts must be given priority over the objective of specialisation, the ECJ ruled, rejecting the national provision that the courts have jurisdiction over EU designs. This means that temporary injunctions against community designs must also be applied for before the Community Design Courts.

Courts for community designsThe question referred by the Netherlands asked for an interpretation of Article 90(1) CDR (see Regulation No 6/2002), in particular with regard to Article 81, which provides for the exclusive application of specialised courts for protected community designs. It is possible that the exclusivity provided for in Article 81 will be abolished in Article 90, which allows the Member States to involve other national courts in addition to the specialised court (these courts are designated under Article 80(1)). Yesterday the ECJ ruled on this issue.

The question of the referring Dutch court referred specifically to the first part of Article 90(1) of Regulation No 6/2002, i.e. the determination of the competent courts for EU designs in an EU Member State and with regard to the ordering of interim measures and protective measures – including temporary injunctions – in respect of a Community design.

The background

The background to this is Dutch legislation. By adopting Article 3 of the Law of November 2004, the Netherlands legislature sought to make use of the specific intellectual-property expertise of the rechtbank Den Haag (District Court, The Hague) and of the Gerechtshof Den Haag (Court of Appeal, The Hague, Netherlands). However, the question whether the courts designated in Article 80(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 have exclusive jurisdiction over interim measures, including protective measures, has been answered differently in case-law and doctrine, including in Member States other than the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the referring Dutch court described.

According to the Netherlands Government, Article 90 must be regarded as the general rule for protective and provisional measures, which must be supplemented as follows, depending on the nature of the proceedings:

  • in actions “relating to the infringement and validity of Community designs (Article 81), only the specialised courts should be able to take the appropriate protective and provisional measures, since they have exclusive jurisdiction in such proceedings;
  • for acts other than those referred to in Article 81, Article 90(1) should apply, which allows any court of a Member State to take interim or protective measures, including specialised courts.

Advocate General saw no jurisdiction for national courts

The Advocate General did not share that view in his Opinion. The system of specialised Community design courts contributes to the uniformity of case-law and to the uniform application of the substantive rules on actions for infringement and invalidity, the Advocate General stated in his Opinion of September 2019, which is also in line with the objectives of Regulation No 6/2002.

In yesterday’s judgment, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) confirmed the Advocate General’s reasoning. In principle, the interpretation of a provision of Union law must take into account not only its wording, but also its context and the objectives of this provision, the ECJ stressed. In recital 29 of Regulation No 6/2002, the Union legislator had pointed out that the rights conferred by a Community design must be enforceable throughout the Union, the Court explained. Consequently, the principle of proximity and efficiency of the courts should prevail over the objective of specialisation.

Concept of “may” in Article 90 CDR

The Dutch Government argued that this provision did not apply to the domestic jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State, but laid down the rules of international jurisdiction for provisional and protective measures. The ECJ contradicted this. In particular, the first part of the Regulation negotiated here applies to the domestic jurisdiction of the courts.

In this context, the use of the word “may” in Article 90(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 was discussed. The use of this word could not be understood as granting the Member States a discretion with regard to the allocation of jurisdiction for Community designs, the ECJ made clear. “May” does not refer to the EU Member States. The word “may” refers only to persons who wish to apply to a court for judicial protection or defence of their design in connection with one of the acts listed in Article 81 of Regulation No 6/2002.  The expression “may” in Article 90 is therefore not an enabling provision.

In addition, the effect of such provisional measures, including protective measures, is inherently limited in time, the Court stated. Their granting by the court having jurisdiction over the case does not prejudge the decision on the action for infringement or for annulment.

No nationally determined jurisdiction of the courts for EU designs

The ECJ therefore rejected the national determination of the jurisdiction of the courts for EU designs. Thus, injunctions against EU designs must also be applied for before the Community Design Courts. The Court ruled that Article 90(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community Designs should be interpreted as meaning that the courts and tribunals of the Member States with jurisdiction to order provisional measures, including protective measures, in respect of a national design also have jurisdiction to order such measures in respect of a Community design.

Would you like to protect or defend a design?

Our attorneys have many years of experience in trademark and patent law and are authorized to represent you before any court in Germany as well as internationally.
If you are interested, please contact us.

 

 

Sources:

Judgement of ECJ about Art. 90 GGV (EU:C:2019:998)

Image:

Free_Photos /pixabay.com / CCO License  

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet  
  • share 

Category iconDesign Law Tag iconjudgment,  ECJ,  Community Design,  interim injunction,  jurisdiction,  registered Design,  protected EU designs,  CDR,  national courts,  jurisdiction for courts,  EU courts,  specialised courts,  EV v design,  interim injunction Community design,  regulation 6/2002,  jurisdiction for national courts,  enabling provision,  art. 90. 1 CDR,  interpretation of art. 90 (1) CDR,  registerd Community Design

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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
This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Recent Posts

  • Thermomix infringement by Lidl: Will Monsieur Cuisine still exist? 25. January 2021
  • Time limit missed for remedying deficiencies at EUIPO 25. January 2021
  • Bacardi wins in trademark dispute Vodka 42 BELOW 20. January 2021
  • HALLOUMI vs. BBQLOUMI: Cyprus loses again in trademark dispute 20. January 2021

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:

25. January 2021
Time limit missed for remedying deficiencies at EUIPO

Time limit missed for remedying deficiencies at EUIPO

22. December 2020
3D printing in design/copyright: Violation of IP rights (2)?

3D printing in design/copyright: Violation of IP rights (2)?

18. December 2020
New Year 2021: News on Nice, Locarno and IPC

New Year 2021: News on Nice, Locarno and IPC

18. December 2020
EUIPO ‘SME Fund’: grant promotes SME applications for IP rights

EUIPO ‘SME Fund’: grant promotes SME applications for IP rights

8. December 2020
Design and trademark protection and brexit: Need for action?

Design and trademark protection and brexit: Need for action?

30. November 2020
No distinctiveness: 3D mark bottle shape with label

No distinctiveness: 3D mark bottle shape with label

Footer

Contact

Franklinstr. 61-63
D-60486 Frankfurt am Main
Germany

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Customer Reviews

Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB Patentrecht, Markenrecht, Eigentum hat 4,78 von 5 Sternen 23 Bewertungen auf ProvenExpert.com

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
  • Info secure emails
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

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

Kontaktformular

 

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

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

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Contact Form

 

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

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

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form