Article 5 (3) of the Brussels I Regulation and Its Applicability in the Case of Intellectual Property Rights Infringement on the Internet
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?
[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
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_distribution> (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 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Digital_distribution> (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
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_distribution> (accessed 31 July
2013).
[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
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_distribution> (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 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Digital_distribution> (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
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_distribution> (accessed 31 July
2013).
@article{"International Journal of Business, Human and Social Sciences:62072", author = "Nataliya Hitsevich", title = "Article 5 (3) of the Brussels I Regulation and Its Applicability in the Case of Intellectual Property Rights Infringement on the Internet", 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 = "Intellectual property rights, infringement, Internet, jurisdiction.", volume = "7", number = "7", pages = "2151-8", }
