MORE ON JURISDICTION AND CTM DAMAGES



Following the recent blogs of last Thursday and Friday on jurisdictional issues involving the Community trade mark, Kathrin Vowinckel (from the London office of Kilpatrick Stockton), adds this contribution to the debate:
"Further to Phillip Johnson's first clarification below, in the Home Depot decision, the Court actually dealt with the question of the parties agreeing the applicable law. Primarily, and as discussed, the Court applied Art. 98(2) CTMR in connection with paras 19, 14(6) German Trade Marks Act, para.242 German Civil Code.

However, the Court offered an alternative explanation for parties not agreeing with this approach. The Court explained that the parties had, by implication, chosen German law. The claimants had based their claims (for damages, etc.) only on German law, and the defendants had not questioned this choice of law at any time during the course of the first instance proceedings. The Court explained that it is accepted that under Art.42 EGBGB (German private international law) the consistent application of German law in court proceedings can be considered an agreement by the parties of the applicable law - at least as concerns claims following from trade mark infringement and based on the CTMR (which aims to have uniform effect)".
The IPKat thanks Kathrin for her addition to the debate.
MORE ON JURISDICTION AND CTM DAMAGES MORE ON JURISDICTION AND CTM DAMAGES Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, August 15, 2005 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. Consider the power of being able to create incoming links to your site any time you want them...

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.