|Prior to the Directive, Europe had a long|
and colourful history of enforcement ...
Case C-230/15 Brite Strike Technologies, a request from the Dutch Rechtbank in relation to the following questions:
I. Must the Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property (BCIP) ... be considered to be a 'subsequent convention', with the result that Article 4.6 of the BCIP cannot be considered to be a special rule for the purposes of Article 71 of Regulation 44/2001 [on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters]?
If that question is answered in the affirmative:
II. Does it follow from Article 22(4) of Regulation 44/2001 that the Belgian, Netherlands and Luxembourg courts all have international jurisdiction to take cognisance of the dispute?
III. If not, how should it be determined, in a case such as the present, whether the Belgian, Netherlands or Luxembourg courts have international jurisdiction? Can Article 4.6 of the BCIP (nonetheless) be applied with a view to (further) determining international jurisdiction?There's a very helpful background post on this reference on Pacta Sunt Servanda - Treaty Notifier here. Meanwhile, if you have any
acquittal of the Pirate Bay Four of criminal charges in Belgium was followed by some wise reflections from Andy Johnstone on the extent to which the UK's intellectual property rights were capable of protecting original interior design. Ben Challis then related the sad fate of Adi Lederman for hacking and releasing incomplete Madonna tracks and the even sadder fate of Random House, publishers of a biography of Joseph Goebbels that made sufficient use of the former propaganda minister's diaries to be deemed an infringement of copyright [it is reported that this ruling is to be appealed]. Oh, and the 1709 Blog has not been quiet on Sunday either, with a report by Marie-Andrée Weiss on the New York state legislature's refusal again to recognise the existence of a post-mortem right of publicity.