Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 30308
Article 5 (3) of the Brussels I Regulation and Its Applicability in the Case of Intellectual Property Rights Infringement on the Internet

Authors: Nataliya Hitsevich

Abstract:

Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation provides that a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful events occurred or may occur. For a number of years Article 5 (3) of the Brussels I Regulation has been at the centre of the debate regarding the intellectual property rights infringement over the Internet. Nothing has been done to adapt the provisions relating to non-internet cases of infringement of intellectual property rights to the context of the Internet. The author’s findings indicate that in the case of intellectual property rights infringement on the Internet, the plaintiff has the option to sue either: the court of the Member State of the event giving rise to the damage: where the publisher of the newspaper is established; the court of the Member State where the damage occurred: where defamatory article is distributed. However, it must be admitted that whilst infringement over the Internet has some similarity to multi-State defamation by means of newspapers, the position is not entirely analogous due to the cross-border nature of the Internet. A simple example which may appropriately illustrate its contentious nature is a defamatory statement published on a website accessible in different Member States, and available in different languages. Therefore, we need to answer the question: how these traditional jurisdictional rules apply in the case of intellectual property rights infringement over the Internet? Should these traditional jurisdictional rules be modified?

Keywords: Internet, Jurisdiction, Intellectual Property Rights, infringement

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1087634

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 3898

References:


[1] Regulation (EC) 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (2001) OJ L 12.
[2] Directive (EC) 2000/31 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (2000) OJ L178. Article 2.
[3] Directive (EC) 2004/48 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (2004) OJ L 195/16
[4] Regulation (EC) 207/2009 on the Community trade mark (2009) OJ L78/1.
[5] WIPO Copyright Treaty (adopted in Geneva on December 20, 1996) available at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/ trtdocs_wo033.html#P78_9739 (accessed 31 July 2013).
[6] Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure: The Report of the Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights/ Bruce A. Lehman, Chair (United States, September 1995), p. 67.
[7] Case 21/76Handelskwekerij G. J. Bier BV v Mines de potassed'Alsace SA(1976) ECR 1735,at 24.
[8] Potter v The Broken Hill Proprietary Company Ltd, (1906) CLR 476, 494.
[9] Case C-68/93Shevill and Others v Presse Alliance SA (1995) ECR I- 415, at 29-31. In France the newspaper has a circulation in excess of 200,000 copies daily and a smaller daily circulation of approximately 15,500 copies outside France. In relation to this latter circulation only 230 copies have been sold in England and Wales, and of these 5 in West Yorkshire, where Ms Shevill was living.
[10] Case 51/97 RéunionEuropéenne SA v Spliethqfl'sBevrachtingskantoor BV (1998) ECR I-6511, para 46: “It must be observed that the objective of legal certainty pursued by the Convention would not be attained if the fact that a Court in a contracting State had accepted jurisdiction as regards defendants not domiciled in a contracting State made it possible to bring another defendant, domiciled in a contracting State, before that some Court in cases other than those envisaged by the Convention, thereby depriving him of the benefit of the protective rules laid down by it”.
[11] Wegmann v Societe Elsevier Science Ltd (1999) IL Pr 379.
[12] Case 33/78, Somafer SA v Saar-Ferngas AG (1978) ECR 2183, at 5.
[13] Case C-509/09 eDate Advertising GmbH v X and Olivier Martinez v MGN Ltd (2012) E.M.L.R. 12 at 24, 42-46 , 51.
[14] Case C 523/10 Wintersteiger AG v Products 4U Sondermaschinenbau GmbH(2012) at 16, 30-39.
[15] Bunt v Tilley (2007) 1WLR 1243.
[16] Netropolitan International Schools Ltd v Designtechnica Corporation Google UK Ltd Google Inc(2009) EWHC 1765 (QB).
[17] EMI Records Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Ltd(2013) EWHC 379 (Ch).
[18] Berezovsky v Michaels (2000) 2 All E.R. 986, HL.
[19] Gutnick v Dow Jones (2002) 201 CLR 575, 631.
[20] King v Lewis(2004) EWCA Civ 1329.The English Court of Appeal accepted jurisdiction over a libel action brought by a plaintiff resident in Florida against a defendant resident in New York in respect of statements which had been downloaded in England from website based in California. The court held that the publication has taken place in England. The text on the Internet is published at the place where it is downloaded. The defendant is “targeted” in every jurisdiction where his text may be downloaded.
[21] Playboy Enterprises Inc. v Frena 839 F. Supp. 1552 (M.D. Fla. 1993).
[22] Sony Music Int'l (UK) Limited v. Easyinternetcafe Limited (2003) EWHC 62 (Ch).
[23] Richardson v Schwarzenegger(2004) EWHC 2422 (QB)
[24] Playboy Enterprises Inc v Chuckleberry Publishing Inc. 939 F Supp 1032, 1039 (SDNY 1996).
[25] Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick(2002) 210 CLR 575, 633.
[26] Bonnier Media Ltd v Greg Lloyd Smith and Trading Corp (2002) ScotCS 347.
[27] Re (VI ZR 111/10) (2012) I.L.Pr. 11 (BGH (Ger)).
[28] Bundesgerichtshof (Rainbow.at) (VI ZR 218/08) Unreported November 10, 2009 (Germany).
[29] Zippo Manufacturing Co. v Zippo Dot Com Inc., 952 F Supp 1119 (WD Pa 1997).
[30] Toys “R” Us Inc. v Step Two SA, 318 F 3d 446 (3rd Cir. 2003);
[31] Sanitec Industries Inc v Sanitec Worldwide Ltd, 376 FSupp 2d 571 (D Del. 2005);
[32] ITP Solar Technologies Inc. v TAB Consulting Inc., 413 F Supp 2d 12 (DNH 2006).
[33] Panavision Intern Lp v Toeppen, 141 F 3d 1316 (1998).
[34] Case C-170/12 Peter Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG, Cour de cassation (France) 11 April 2012
[35] Opinion of Mr Advocate General Cruz Villalón delivered on 29 March 2011. eDate Advertising GmbH v X (C-509/09) and Oliver Martinez and Robert Martinez v MGN Limited (C-161/10). Available at http://eurlex. europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62009CC0509:E N:HTML accessed 31 July 2013, at 51.
[36] Lopez-Tarruella, “The International Dimension of Google Activities: Private International Law and the Need of Legal Certainty”, Google and the Law. Information Technology and Law Series 22 (Asser press, The Hague, The Netherland 2012), p. 333.
[37] A. Nuyts, K. Szychowska, N. Hatzimihail “Cross-border litigation in intellectual property matters in Europe” (EC Project on Judicial Cooperation in IP/IT Matters. Heidelberg Background Paper. 21.10.2006) p.32.
[38] Andrej Savin, EU Internet Law (Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham 2013), p.60.
[39] Arnaud Nuyts, Suing at the place of infringement: the application of Article 5 (3) of Regulation 44/2001 to IP Matters and Internet Disputes. International Litigation in Intellectual Property and Information Technology, (Kluwer Law International, the Netherlands 2008), pp. 115 –116, 139.
[40] E. Jooris, “Infringement of Foreign Copyright and the Jurisdiction of English Courts” (1996) 3 EIPR 127, pp. 139-140.
[41] Faye Fangfei Wang, Internet Jurisdiction and choice of Law: Legal practices in the EU, US and China. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2010), p. 53.
[42] Geraldine Fainer, “eDateAdvertising GmbH v X Martinez and another v MGN Ltd” (2012) Q.B. 654.
[43] Graham J. H. Smith, Internet Law And Regulation (Fourth edition, Sweet and Maxwell, London 2007), pp. 462, 469.
[44] J. J. Fawcett and P. Torremans, Intellectual Property and Private International Law (Oxford, Clarendon 1998), p.150.
[45] James J. Fawcett FBA, Paul Torremans, Intellectual Property and Private International Law (Second Edition, Oxford University Press 2011), pp. 411, 549, 551-554, 556, 586.
[46] Leigh Smith “CJEU clarifies jurisdiction to award damages for the infringement of “personality rights” online” Ent. L.R. 2012, 23(2), pp. 34-35.
[47] Lilian Edwards, “The Scotsman, the Greek, the Mauritian company and the Internet: where on earth do things happen in cyberspace?” Edin. L.R. 2004, 8(1), 99-111
[48] Maksymilian Pazdan and Maciej Szpunar, “Croos-Border Litigation of Unfair Competition Over the Internet “in Arnaud Nuyts, International Litigation in Intellectual Property and Information Technology (Kluwer Law International, The Netherland 2008), p.142.
[49] Metzger Axel, “Jurisdiction in Cases concerning intellectual property infringements on the Internet: Brussels I Regulation, ALI Principles and Max-Planck Proposals” (Tübingen, Mohr/Siebeck 2009), p. 255.
[50] Nuyts, Szychowska, Hatzimihail, “Cross-Border Litigation in IP/IT Matters in the European Union: The Transformation of the Jurisdictional Landscape” in Arnaud Nuyts, International Litigation in Intellectual Property and Information Technology (Kluwer Law International, The Netherland 2008), pp. 39-46.
[51] R. Pansch, “The Proper Forum for illicit acts in cases of cross-border infringement of proprietary commercial rights” European Law Forum (2000) pp. 353- 354.
[52] Uta Kohl, Jurisdiction and the Internet. Regulatory Competence over Online Activity (Cambridge University Press 2007), pp. 8, 123.
[53] Yasmine Lahlou, Laurence Sinopoli and Philippe Guez, “Chronicle on conflict of laws in business matters” I.B.L.J. 2013, 3, 217-241
[54] Article 2 (1) of the Brussels I Regulation grants jurisdiction to the courts of member states in which defendants are domiciled. The concept of domicile in Article 2 (1) of the Brussels I Regulation (according to the rules of Articles 59 and 60) is quite wide and include three connecting factors: statutory seat, central administration, principal place of business.
[55] Also called content delivery, online distribution, or electronic software distribution.
[56] From Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia available at (accessed 31 July 2013).
[57] Streaming involves downloading the content to a hard drive and using content “on-demand” as it is needed. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia. Available at (accessed 31 July 2013).
[58] Peer-to-peer file sharing is the distribution and sharing of digital documents and computer files using the technology of peer-to-peer (P2P) networking. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia. Available at (accessed 31 July 2013).