|Without the facts, the IPKat isn't even sure |
if this is the right Wintersteiger
"1. In the case of an alleged infringement by a person established in another Member State of a trade mark granted in the State of the court seized through the use of a keyword (AdWord) identical to that trade mark in an internet search engine which offers its services under various country-specific top-level domains, is the phrase "the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur" in Article 5(3) of Regulation 44/2001 ("Brussels I") is to be interpreted as meaning that;The IPKat is surprised only that it has taken so long for these issues to reach Europe's highest court, given the high level of internet (and AdWord) use within a single market in which there are so many countries and jurisdictions.
1.1. jurisdiction is established only if the keyword is used on the search engine website the opt-level domain of which is that of the State of the court seized;
1.2. jurisdiction is established only if the search engine website on which the keyword is used can be accessed in the State of the court seized;
1.3. jurisdiction is dependent on the satisfaction or other requirements additional to the accessibility of the website?
2. If Question1.3 is answered in the affirmative: Which criteria are to be used to determine whether jurisdiction under Article 5(3) of Brussels I is established where a trade mark granted in the State of the course seized is used as an AdWord on a search engine website with a country-specific top-level domain different from that of the State of the court seized?"
If you would like to advise the UK Intellectual Property Office on these issues, thus enabling the UK government to decide whether to get involved or not, you can email your thoughts here. As usual, the time for response is absurdly short, and is really an insult to the intellectual property community: you have to submit your comments by Tuesday 4 January 2011 -- and there aren't exactly many working days between now and then. The deadline for the court to receive observations is 1 March 2011.
Merpel says, can any reader tell her what the underlying dispute is all about?