Case studies on cross-border injunctions
Pascal Böhner, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbB, Attorney-at-Law
I. Obtaining injunctions abroad
Case 1: Cupcake wars
Case 2: Nintendo/BigBen
Case 3: Coty / B.O Zacobi (IT)
Case 4: Condenser for air conditioning unit
II. Injunctions against intermediaries
III. Precautionary measures/Preliminary injunctions
IV. Scope of injunction
BGH, judgment of 11 October 2017 - I ZB 96/16
Requirements for compliance with injunction orders
--> Liability to cease and desist = Liability for removal???
Presentation by Zoran Blazevic, Croatia, on the case law of the High Administrative Court in Croatia against the procurement review bodies' decisions, at the SIGMA 2nd webinar on public procurement reality and challenges of post COVID, held on 9 March 2021. This webinar is the follow-up on the 1st webinar which took place on 26 January 2021 (https://www.slideshare.net/SIGMA2013/tag/ipa260121pup).
Presentation by Marc Steiner, Switzerland, on the practice of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court on public procurement, at the SIGMA 2nd webinar on public procurement reality and challenges of post COVID, held on 9 March 2021. This webinar is the follow-up on the 1st webinar which took place on 26 January 2021 (https://www.slideshare.net/SIGMA2013/tag/ipa260121pup).
IP Bulletin- what strategies to reclaim unregistered trademark rights in vietnamKENFOX IP & Law Office
Vietnam follows “first to file” principle in establishing industrial property rights, whereby industrial property rights are granted to the first filer. This principle, on one hand, encourages IPR holders to register their intangible assets at the soonest time, but on the other hand, together with a “very open” and “very free” regime on "the right to register a mark" without imposing certain conditions like many countries in the world triggers rampant "trademark squatting" in Vietnam.
Presentation by Aleksandra Melesko on the Case-law of the Court of Justice of the EU, at the SIGMA webinar on public procurement reality and challenges of post COVID, held on 26 January 2021.
EXPERT WEBINAR: GDPR One Year Later — What Can We Learn from Investigations a...Feroot
Join James Tumbridge, a lawyer with the specialist law firm Venner Shipley and one of the authors of the UK Data Protection Act 2018, and Ivan Tsarynny, CEO & Founder of Feroot Privacy, to discuss the unique data protection laws of EU jurisdictions and the potential impact regulations can have on your business operations, expansion plans and governance structure.
Topics for discussion include:
- Lessons learned from the courts, regulator inquiries and fines over the past year
- How to stay informed of current privacy regulations by learning about those who have been impacted already
- Significant trends in GDPR behaviours
- An overview of jurisdictional regulations & how to best prepare
- Key issues to keep in mind for governance, corporate structures and domiciles in data protection terms
Talk on product liability related to the internet of things, with special focus on software. What is it, and how to reduce and defend against against it.
Presentation by Zoran Blazevic, Croatia, on the case law of the High Administrative Court in Croatia against the procurement review bodies' decisions, at the SIGMA 2nd webinar on public procurement reality and challenges of post COVID, held on 9 March 2021. This webinar is the follow-up on the 1st webinar which took place on 26 January 2021 (https://www.slideshare.net/SIGMA2013/tag/ipa260121pup).
Presentation by Marc Steiner, Switzerland, on the practice of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court on public procurement, at the SIGMA 2nd webinar on public procurement reality and challenges of post COVID, held on 9 March 2021. This webinar is the follow-up on the 1st webinar which took place on 26 January 2021 (https://www.slideshare.net/SIGMA2013/tag/ipa260121pup).
IP Bulletin- what strategies to reclaim unregistered trademark rights in vietnamKENFOX IP & Law Office
Vietnam follows “first to file” principle in establishing industrial property rights, whereby industrial property rights are granted to the first filer. This principle, on one hand, encourages IPR holders to register their intangible assets at the soonest time, but on the other hand, together with a “very open” and “very free” regime on "the right to register a mark" without imposing certain conditions like many countries in the world triggers rampant "trademark squatting" in Vietnam.
Presentation by Aleksandra Melesko on the Case-law of the Court of Justice of the EU, at the SIGMA webinar on public procurement reality and challenges of post COVID, held on 26 January 2021.
EXPERT WEBINAR: GDPR One Year Later — What Can We Learn from Investigations a...Feroot
Join James Tumbridge, a lawyer with the specialist law firm Venner Shipley and one of the authors of the UK Data Protection Act 2018, and Ivan Tsarynny, CEO & Founder of Feroot Privacy, to discuss the unique data protection laws of EU jurisdictions and the potential impact regulations can have on your business operations, expansion plans and governance structure.
Topics for discussion include:
- Lessons learned from the courts, regulator inquiries and fines over the past year
- How to stay informed of current privacy regulations by learning about those who have been impacted already
- Significant trends in GDPR behaviours
- An overview of jurisdictional regulations & how to best prepare
- Key issues to keep in mind for governance, corporate structures and domiciles in data protection terms
Talk on product liability related to the internet of things, with special focus on software. What is it, and how to reduce and defend against against it.
Strengthening incentives for leniency agreements – Austria – September 2022 O...OECDCompetitionDivis
This presentation by Natalie Harsdorf-Borsch, Acting Director General (Federal Austrian Competition Authority) was made during the discussion “Media Mergers” held for competition authorities officials on 27 September 2022. More materials on the topic can be found at https://www.oecd.org/competition/latinamerica. This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
The global value of fake goods hit an estimated $653bn in 2014 – with drugs, electronics and software accounting for the most commonly counterfeited products. But SMEs are often ignorant of their intellectual property (IP) rights and only16% of SME owners place a specific monetary value on the IP associated with their brands, logos, websites and product designs. What are the implications of this?
29 03 - EU insolvency law - Lessons from France Vermeille & Co
Focus on pre-insolvency proceedings can be country productive
Market for distressed entices cannot emerge without effective valuation methodology and cramdown procedure
European banking supervision needs a pan-European insolvency law
Online and across borders: a net gain for technology companies?Gareth Dickson
A look at how recent judgments on jurisdiction might affect companies doing business online, together with some practical tips for how to make sure these rules do not catch you out
A presentation discussing interplay with Patent Office proceedings, use of the pilot program, updates on domestic industry, and the latest on public interest. They also discussed best practices in preparing for ITC litigation.
Anti-Counterfeiting and Brand Protection Strategies for ChinaQuarles & Brady
China is reported to be the source of over 86% of counterfeits worldwide with a $396B impact on global companies. Whether you produce, sell or have nothing to do with China, China counterfeits should be on your radar. For those who have made attempts to fight counterfeits or infringers in China, you may be tired of playing the "whack-a-mole" game of endless Alibaba take-downs and raids of small Chinese factories in remote areas. So are we, which is why Quarles & Brady’s China Trademark duo employs different strategies that can yield more meaningful results. Join us to learn more.
An overview of the available remedies against infringements in Italy: civil, ...Dario Paschetta
At the "IP in Fashion" conference organized by Metroconsult s.r.l. and Gorodissky & Partners I made a short presentation where I outlined the available remedies against infringements of IP rights in Italy demonstrating that Italian legal system provides IPRs owners with effective tools provided that they are activated by means of a synergistic problem‐solving approach involing remedies under civil law, criminal law and new custom powers
Since intellectual property rights (IPRs) constitute a civil right, civil enforcement plays a critical role in
IPR enforcement. However, our analysis of statistics on IPR infringement and enforcement in reports
from enforcement agencies reveals that the vast majority of IPR infringement cases in Vietnam have
been resolved under administrative route over the past time. While thousands of IP infringement
cases are handled administratively each year, only a few cases are tried by courts. The administrative
mechanism is said to be more expeditious, compact, simple, and economical in handling IPR
infringements than the lengthy trial, complicated, and costly procedures of the civil mechanism. The
above dispute-resolution situation in Vietnam results in a fact that civil relations and civil disputes are
largely resolved under administrative proceedings, resulting in inadequate protection of IPRs and,
more seriously, many violations continuing to reoccur through larger scale and more sophisticated
tricks.
How the Law protects Investment in Technology - Trade secrets, Patents, Copyr...Jane Lambert
This is the handout for my presentation on how the law protects investment in technology that I gave on 27 Nov 2013. In it you will find links to the treaties, statutes and other materials as well as some background discussion.
Enforcing IPRs: a European concise guide for luxury and fashion businesses - ...Annabelle Gauberti
Some advice to fashion and luxury businesses, from a barrister and solicitors practising in England & Wales and France, as well as a lawyer practising in Germany, specialising in intellectual property, on the practical steps to take in order to enforce one’s IPRS in France, Germany and the UK.
Holger Alt, ialci Member of the Executive Committee - responsible for Germany – and Partner, von Boetticher
https://www.bardehle.com
https://www.bardehle.com/en/team/karl-christof
In an online event organized by German-American Business Council of Boston, Christof Karl of BARDEHLE PAGENBERG talked with his US colleagues Susan Glovsky and Alexander Adams of Hamilton Brook Smith Reynolds about IP issues which entrepreneurs and managers of technology-oriented companies should keep in mind. Do you have a plan for securing your innovations through patents? How can you avoid pitfalls that can forfeit your patent rights? In which situations would it be better to protect the innovations as secret know-how rather than to patent them?
Wesentliche Rechtsprechung zum Lizenzvertragsrecht der letzten Jahre, Dr. Anna Giedke, Rechtsanwältin BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbB
Vortrag für LES Young Members, 2018
Siehe auch GRUR-Prax 2019, 101: Aufsatz von Dr. Anna Giedke
"Aktuelle Rechtsprechung zum Lizenzrecht"
http://beck-online.beck.de/?vpath=bibdata%2fzeits%2fgrurprax%2f2019%2fcont%2fgrurprax.2019.101.1.htm
More Related Content
Similar to Intellectual property Litigation and the Fight against Counterfeiting in the EU
Strengthening incentives for leniency agreements – Austria – September 2022 O...OECDCompetitionDivis
This presentation by Natalie Harsdorf-Borsch, Acting Director General (Federal Austrian Competition Authority) was made during the discussion “Media Mergers” held for competition authorities officials on 27 September 2022. More materials on the topic can be found at https://www.oecd.org/competition/latinamerica. This presentation was uploaded with the author’s consent.
The global value of fake goods hit an estimated $653bn in 2014 – with drugs, electronics and software accounting for the most commonly counterfeited products. But SMEs are often ignorant of their intellectual property (IP) rights and only16% of SME owners place a specific monetary value on the IP associated with their brands, logos, websites and product designs. What are the implications of this?
29 03 - EU insolvency law - Lessons from France Vermeille & Co
Focus on pre-insolvency proceedings can be country productive
Market for distressed entices cannot emerge without effective valuation methodology and cramdown procedure
European banking supervision needs a pan-European insolvency law
Online and across borders: a net gain for technology companies?Gareth Dickson
A look at how recent judgments on jurisdiction might affect companies doing business online, together with some practical tips for how to make sure these rules do not catch you out
A presentation discussing interplay with Patent Office proceedings, use of the pilot program, updates on domestic industry, and the latest on public interest. They also discussed best practices in preparing for ITC litigation.
Anti-Counterfeiting and Brand Protection Strategies for ChinaQuarles & Brady
China is reported to be the source of over 86% of counterfeits worldwide with a $396B impact on global companies. Whether you produce, sell or have nothing to do with China, China counterfeits should be on your radar. For those who have made attempts to fight counterfeits or infringers in China, you may be tired of playing the "whack-a-mole" game of endless Alibaba take-downs and raids of small Chinese factories in remote areas. So are we, which is why Quarles & Brady’s China Trademark duo employs different strategies that can yield more meaningful results. Join us to learn more.
An overview of the available remedies against infringements in Italy: civil, ...Dario Paschetta
At the "IP in Fashion" conference organized by Metroconsult s.r.l. and Gorodissky & Partners I made a short presentation where I outlined the available remedies against infringements of IP rights in Italy demonstrating that Italian legal system provides IPRs owners with effective tools provided that they are activated by means of a synergistic problem‐solving approach involing remedies under civil law, criminal law and new custom powers
Since intellectual property rights (IPRs) constitute a civil right, civil enforcement plays a critical role in
IPR enforcement. However, our analysis of statistics on IPR infringement and enforcement in reports
from enforcement agencies reveals that the vast majority of IPR infringement cases in Vietnam have
been resolved under administrative route over the past time. While thousands of IP infringement
cases are handled administratively each year, only a few cases are tried by courts. The administrative
mechanism is said to be more expeditious, compact, simple, and economical in handling IPR
infringements than the lengthy trial, complicated, and costly procedures of the civil mechanism. The
above dispute-resolution situation in Vietnam results in a fact that civil relations and civil disputes are
largely resolved under administrative proceedings, resulting in inadequate protection of IPRs and,
more seriously, many violations continuing to reoccur through larger scale and more sophisticated
tricks.
How the Law protects Investment in Technology - Trade secrets, Patents, Copyr...Jane Lambert
This is the handout for my presentation on how the law protects investment in technology that I gave on 27 Nov 2013. In it you will find links to the treaties, statutes and other materials as well as some background discussion.
Enforcing IPRs: a European concise guide for luxury and fashion businesses - ...Annabelle Gauberti
Some advice to fashion and luxury businesses, from a barrister and solicitors practising in England & Wales and France, as well as a lawyer practising in Germany, specialising in intellectual property, on the practical steps to take in order to enforce one’s IPRS in France, Germany and the UK.
Holger Alt, ialci Member of the Executive Committee - responsible for Germany – and Partner, von Boetticher
Similar to Intellectual property Litigation and the Fight against Counterfeiting in the EU (20)
https://www.bardehle.com
https://www.bardehle.com/en/team/karl-christof
In an online event organized by German-American Business Council of Boston, Christof Karl of BARDEHLE PAGENBERG talked with his US colleagues Susan Glovsky and Alexander Adams of Hamilton Brook Smith Reynolds about IP issues which entrepreneurs and managers of technology-oriented companies should keep in mind. Do you have a plan for securing your innovations through patents? How can you avoid pitfalls that can forfeit your patent rights? In which situations would it be better to protect the innovations as secret know-how rather than to patent them?
Wesentliche Rechtsprechung zum Lizenzvertragsrecht der letzten Jahre, Dr. Anna Giedke, Rechtsanwältin BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbB
Vortrag für LES Young Members, 2018
Siehe auch GRUR-Prax 2019, 101: Aufsatz von Dr. Anna Giedke
"Aktuelle Rechtsprechung zum Lizenzrecht"
http://beck-online.beck.de/?vpath=bibdata%2fzeits%2fgrurprax%2f2019%2fcont%2fgrurprax.2019.101.1.htm
Softwarepatente - nach welchen Kriterien werden Sie erteilt? Wir diskutieren die Prüfungsmaßstäbe der deutschen, europäischen und US-Rechtsprechung und beleuchten aktuelle Fälle aus den Bereichen grafische Benutzeroberflächen, mathematische Methoden, Geschäftsmethoden und Signale.
Discover the treasure chest: 72 articles commenting on recent IP Case Law to court decisions in Patent-, Trademark- and Design Law.
A collection of articles from the firm's newsletter, the "BARDEHLE PAGENBERG IP Report" 2013/2014. 323 p., Published 2015. Editors: Dr. Henning Hartwig, Dr. Thomas Gniadek.
Download our free e-book here: http://bitly.com/1Ia71CM
More from BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbB (6)
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v/s Union of India.pptxshweeta209
transfer of the P.I.L filed by lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay in Delhi High Court to Supreme Court.
on the issue of UNIFORM MARRIAGE AGE of men and women.
Car Accident Injury Do I Have a Case....Knowyourright
Every year, thousands of Minnesotans are injured in car accidents. These injuries can be severe – even life-changing. Under Minnesota law, you can pursue compensation through a personal injury lawsuit.
NATURE, ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.pptxanvithaav
These slides helps the student of international law to understand what is the nature of international law? and how international law was originated and developed?.
The slides was well structured along with the highlighted points for better understanding .
PRECEDENT AS A SOURCE OF LAW (SAIF JAVED).pptxOmGod1
Precedent, or stare decisis, is a cornerstone of common law systems where past judicial decisions guide future cases, ensuring consistency and predictability in the legal system. Binding precedents from higher courts must be followed by lower courts, while persuasive precedents may influence but are not obligatory. This principle promotes fairness and efficiency, allowing for the evolution of the law as higher courts can overrule outdated decisions. Despite criticisms of rigidity and complexity, precedent ensures similar cases are treated alike, balancing stability with flexibility in judicial decision-making.
Introducing New Government Regulation on Toll Road.pdfAHRP Law Firm
For nearly two decades, Government Regulation Number 15 of 2005 on Toll Roads ("GR No. 15/2005") has served as the cornerstone of toll road legislation. However, with the emergence of various new developments and legal requirements, the Government has enacted Government Regulation Number 23 of 2024 on Toll Roads to replace GR No. 15/2005. This new regulation introduces several provisions impacting toll business entities and toll road users. Find out more out insights about this topic in our Legal Brief publication.
ALL EYES ON RAFAH BUT WHY Explain more.pdf46adnanshahzad
All eyes on Rafah: But why?. The Rafah border crossing, a crucial point between Egypt and the Gaza Strip, often finds itself at the center of global attention. As we explore the significance of Rafah, we’ll uncover why all eyes are on Rafah and the complexities surrounding this pivotal region.
INTRODUCTION
What makes Rafah so significant that it captures global attention? The phrase ‘All eyes are on Rafah’ resonates not just with those in the region but with people worldwide who recognize its strategic, humanitarian, and political importance. In this guide, we will delve into the factors that make Rafah a focal point for international interest, examining its historical context, humanitarian challenges, and political dimensions.
In 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs established a committee led by Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh, former Vice Chancellor of National Law University (NLU), Delhi. This committee was tasked with reviewing the three codes of criminal law. The primary objective of the committee was to propose comprehensive reforms to the country’s criminal laws in a manner that is both principled and effective.
The committee’s focus was on ensuring the safety and security of individuals, communities, and the nation as a whole. Throughout its deliberations, the committee aimed to uphold constitutional values such as justice, dignity, and the intrinsic value of each individual. Their goal was to recommend amendments to the criminal laws that align with these values and priorities.
Subsequently, in February, the committee successfully submitted its recommendations regarding amendments to the criminal law. These recommendations are intended to serve as a foundation for enhancing the current legal framework, promoting safety and security, and upholding the constitutional principles of justice, dignity, and the inherent worth of every individual.
2. I. Obtaining injunctions abroad
II. Injunctions against intermediaries
III. Precautionary measures/Preliminary injunctions
IV. Scope of injunction
AGENDA
20.04.2018 2
3. I. Obtaining injunctions abroad
II. Injunctions against intermediaries
III. Precautionary measures/Preliminary injunctions
IV. Scope of injunction
AGENDA
320.04.2018
4. Case 1: The Cupcake wars
20.04.2018 5
• Owner based in Germany owns a EUTM for cakes
• Manufacturing of infringing products in non-EU country, by
non-EU company
• Delivery to UK; sales (only!) in UK supermarkets
• Manufacturer sued in Germany
I. OBTAINING INJUNCTIONS ABROAD
5. • Competence of German Court?
• EU-wide injunction?
• EU-wide claims for information, damages etc?
I. OBTAINING INJUNCTIONS ABROAD
Case 1: Cupcake wars
720.04.2018
7. Case background
• Nintendo based in Japan; owns RCDs
• BigBen France manufactures infringing products
• Delivers these products to its German subsidiary
• Both BigBen FR and DE are sued in Germany for RCD
infringement
I. OBTAINING INJUNCTIONS ABROAD
Case 2: Nintendo/BigBen
920.04.2018
8. • Competence of German Court?
• BigBen France
• BigBen Germany
• EU-wide injunction?
• BigBen France
• BigBen Germany
• EU-wide claims for information, damages etc?
• BigBen France
• BigBen Germany
I. OBTAINING INJUNCTIONS ABROAD
Case 2: Nintendo/BigBen
1120.04.2018
9. Case 3:
Coty / B.O Zacobi (IT) –
BGH, 9. Nov. 2017, I ZR 164/16
I. OBTAINING INJUNCTIONS ABROAD
20.04.2018 12
10. • Plaintiff owns number of EUTMs and IR designating EU (Davidoff,
Joop!, Wolfgang Joop, Jil Sander, Nikos, J.Lo/Jennifer Lopez,
Vivienne Westwood, Calvin Klein, Lancaster, Chloé, Cerruti) and IR
designating Germany (Covet)
• Defendant runs website (.it TLD), available also in German,
containing contact details, but no delivery to Germany
• German company (not involved in proceedings) purchases via e-
mail
• Delivery by freight forwarder from Italy to Germany
I. OBTAINING INJUNCTIONS ABROAD
Case 3: Coty / B.O Zacobi (IT)
20.04.2018 13
12. Competence of German courts against Italian
company?
Art. 125 (5) EUTMR: Proceedings (…) may also be brought in the courts of the
Member State in which the act of infringement has been committed or
threatened, or in which an act referred to in Article 11(2) has been committed.
I. OBTAINING INJUNCTIONS ABROAD
Case 3: Coty / B.O Zacobi (IT)
20.04.2018 15
13. • „Place of infringing act“???
➢ In multi-state infringement cases
• Not each infringing act per se
• Global assessment
• Place of infringing act for offering goods on a website is the
place of the upload, not place of receipt/download;
• purchasing via e-mail: place from which e-mail is sent, not
received
I. OBTAINING INJUNCTIONS ABROAD
Case 3: Coty / B.O Zacobi (IT)
20.04.2018 16
14. NO Competence of German courts
• At least under Art 125 (5) EUTMR
• They should have done the „Nintendo way“ (Joint defendants)
• Infringement of German TM?
I. OBTAINING INJUNCTIONS ABROAD
Case 3: Coty / B.O Zacobi (IT)
20.04.2018 17
15. Case 4: Condenser for air conditioning
unit (facts simplified)
20.04.2018 18
• Owner owns a DE patent on a condenser
• Supplier manufactures patented condensers in CH
• Swiss supplier supplies to manufacturer in IT;
manufacturer installs condensers in cars
• Manufacturer distributes cars in Europe, including DE
I. OBTAINING INJUNCTIONS ABROAD
17. Case 4: Condenser for air conditioning
unit (facts completely simplified)
20.04.2018 20
• Owner owns a DE patent on a condenser cheese
• Supplier manufactures patented condensers cheese in CH
• Swiss supplier supplies to manufacturer in IT;
manufacturer installs condensers in cars puts cheese on
pizza
• Manufacturer distributes cars Pizza Margherita in Europe,
including DE
I. OBTAINING INJUNCTIONS ABROAD
19. Does supplier infringe owner’s patent in Germany?
• Yes.
• Supplier knew owner’s patent
• Supplier knew that manufacturer would put the products on the German market
• Supplier nevertheless supplied manufacturer
Supplier consciously and deliberately caused (assisted in) putting
on the market in DE
Supplier is liable for manufacturer’s putting on the market in
Germany
I. OBTAINING INJUNCTIONS ABROAD
Case 4: Condenser for air conditioning unit
20.04.2018 22
20. I. Obtaining injunctions abroad
II. Injunctions against intermediaries
III. Precautionary measures/Preliminary injunctions
IV. Scope of injunction
AGENDA
20.04.2018 23
21. Liability of intermediaries in accordance with Art. 9(1)(a)
and Art. 11 Directive 2004/48
• Perpetrator – direct or indirect infringer
• Participant – instigator, accomplice
• Störer (Breach of Duty of Care/Accessory liability)
“anyone who – without being the perpetrator or accomplice – in any
way wilfully contributes to the infringement with adequate causation,
however only in so far as
• it is legally possible to prevent the act?
• reasonable inspection obligations have been met (i.e.
identifiable with reasonable efforts)
II. Injunctions against intermediaries
A. GENERAL BACKGROUND
20.04.2018 24
22. • Freight forwarders etc.
• Liable from the time of knowing that products infringe IP rights,
in particular after notice by owner
• From then on, they must refrain from doing anything that leads
to import, and hence, infringement of rights
• Press companies (advertisements)
• Only applies to blatant infringements that are easy to identify by
publishers or editors
20.04.2018 25
II. Injunctions against intermediaries
B. IP Rights
23. • Online service providers (eBay, Google etc.)
• Reasonable monitoring efforts to prevent infringements of
rights
• From the time of knowing about the infringement (notice),
online service providers must not only block the offer
concerned, but they must also take efforts to avoid, where
possible, similar trademark infringements in the future
(BGH GRUR 2004, 860, 864 – Internet-Versteigerung I)
• Reasonable efforts (-) if filtering software fails to detect
infringements (BGH GRUR 2007, 708 – Internet-
Versteigerung II)
20.04.2018 26
B. IP Rights
24. • Common business practices under competition law
• Anyone who has created a serious likelihood that interests protected under
laws against unfair competition will be liable for infringements of third parties
due to the failure to comply with common business practices or Breach of Duty
of Care
• Role as guarantor – Obligation to prevent or limit the risk as
far as possible and reasonable (BGH, GRUR 2007, 890,
Jugendgefährdende Medien bei ebay, para. 36)
• Common business practices/Duty of Care seen as monitoring obligation in
practice
• Balancing of interests: not all offers, but “notice and take-down”
• Unclear: Are there proactive monitoring obligations (take down without notice)
II. Injunctions against intermediaries
C. UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW
20.04.2018 27
26. Applicability to “real platforms”?
• BGH “Bahnhofs-Verkaufsstellen” (BGH GRUR 1995, 601 ff.):
anyone who tolerates unfair practices by lessees without making
use of provisions in the lease agreement to prevent such
infringements of rights acts in breach of unfair competition law.
• Lessor/trade fair company makes a direct profit because of the
anticompetitive practices of the lessees – as do internet auction
sites for each successful auction.
• In accordance with the rulings of Germany’s Federal Court of
Justice (BGH), this creates the obligation to prevent and eliminate
infringements of rights
• So far as legally possible (domiciliary right, exhibition terms and
conditions) and reasonable
II. Injunctions against intermediaries
20.04.2018 29
28. Applicability to “real platforms”?
ECJ, judgment of 07. July 2016, Case C-494/15 – DELTA CENTER
• Principles on liability of online service providers apply to offline
trading, respectively
• Requirements set forth on online intermediaries have to be
complied with by offline intermediaries, i.e. those
• who support infringing acts of third parties,
• have been notified
• could take reasonable efforts to prevent infringement
➢ Need to become active
II. Injunctions against intermediaries
20.04.2018 31
29. I. Obtaining injunctions abroad
II. Injunctions against intermediaries
III. Precautionary measures/Preliminary injunctions
IV. Scope of injunction
AGENDA
20.04.2018 32
30. • Available in cases of urgency
• Rule of thumb: only within 1 month as of knowledge of infringement
(depends on court’s practice)
• Typical case: trade show, new marketing campaign
• Infringement and validity must be reasonably clear
• Plaintiff must be entitled and able to raise the claims (registered as
owner)
• Weighing of interests
• Timing: ex parte within hours / days; inter partes within weeks
IV. PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES AND INJUNCTIONS ON THE MERIT
20.04.2018 33
Preliminary injunctions
31. Scope
• Only injunction, to some extent information, securing of
destruction (custody); no damages, no recall (however: see
“Scope of injunction below)
• Summary procedure; preliminary effect
• Liability for damages if injunction is enforced and later lifted
Defense measures
• “Protective brief” in advance
• Appeal and / or procedure on the merits
• Note: NIDA would not protect against P.I.
IV. PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES AND INJUNCTIONS ON THE MERIT
Preliminary Injunctions
20.04.2018 34
32. Problem: design around after first instance infringement
P.i. request or request penalty for contempt of court?
Solution/Argument:
urgency deadline revives if
1. penalty request was filed within 1 month deadline as of
knowledge of infringing situation, and
2. p.i. request is filed within 1 month after penalty request has
been dismissed
IV. PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES AND INJUNCTIONS ON THE MERIT
Preliminary Injunctions - Urgency
20.04.2018 35
33. • Standard practice
• In clear cases, decisions are rendered ex parte
• If the court has doubts: they will call you!
• Either you can provide further evidence and work on
deficiencies
• Or the court gives you a chance to withdraw the p.i. request,
and Defendant will not be notified
• If the decision is rendered ex parte, it has to be formally served
to Defendant by Plaintiff (not the court)
IV. PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES AND INJUNCTIONS ON THE MERIT
Preliminary Injunctions
20.04.2018 36
34. I. Obtaining injunctions abroad
II. Burden of proof
III. Injunctions against intermediaries
IV. Precautionary measures/Preliminary injunctions
V. Scope of injunction
AGENDA
20.04.2018 37
35. BGH, judgment of 11 October 2017 - I ZB 96/16
Requirements for compliance with injunction orders
Liability to cease and desist = Liability for removal???
V. SCOPE OF INJUNCTION
20.04.2018 38
36. • TM infringement; Preliminary injunction order issued and served (=
fully in effect)
• Products “posted in quarantine” and notified as “out of sale”
• No recall of products which had been already delivered to
(commercial) customers
• No information to customers on existence of the PI order
• Test purchase: wholesaler (not involved in proceedings) delivered
infringing products obtained from the defendant
➢ What does „cease and desist“ comprise???
V. SCOPE OF INJUNCTION
Case background
20.04.2018 39
37. ➢ What does „cease and desist“ comprise?
➢ Mere omission/stopping of acts or active measures?
➢ What acts to be taken?
➢ Conflict with recall obilgation?
V. SCOPE OF INJUNCTION
Key questions
20.04.2018 40
38. • NO measures taken to prevent further distribution of infringing product
sold by the defendant to the wholesaler, after service of PI
• Not only stop or omit further distribution, but also actively take action to
prevent the distribution of the infringing products
• The term “omitting”, is not what it means in the common language (!);
interpretation of the court order to define which practices (such as
actively taking action) are covered by the cease and desist order
• In case of ongoing infringements, “omission” comprises obligation to
execute feasible and reasonable actions to remove the impairment of
the rights holder
V. SCOPE OF INJUNCTION
Non-Compliance with injunction order?
20.04.2018 41
39. • Omission is more than mere inactivity, if defendant can comply only
by eliminating the impairment. That is the case where not removing
has the same effects as continuing infringement. (However: why is
third party sale continuation of own infringement???)
• Even if no continued action, obligation to take action if the defendant
can only comply with his obligations to omit/cease and desist by
taking further measures. If infringing products are already sold, the
obligation to cease and desist includes not only a termination of sale
but typically also a recall of products previously delivered products.
• Whether or not rights against the third party (to recall) exist, is
irrelevant; the actual possibility of taking influence is enough
• No conflict/ barrier effect of the specific provisions for removal and
recall
V. SCOPE OF INJUNCTION
20.04.2018 42
41. BARDEHLE.COM
BARDEHLE PAGENBERG
Partnerschaft mbB
Prinzregentenplatz 7
81675 München
"Law Firm of the Year" 2016 for Intellectual Property Law –
named by Best Lawyers® and Handelsblatt
"TOP-KANZLEI Patentrecht 2017" – awarded by WirtschaftsWoche
"Germany Trade Mark Firm of the Year" 2018 – honored by Managing IP
20.04.2018