cleared of UN sanctions-busting in the provision of technical aid to North Korea; then, a day later, news broke that WIPO hadn't crossed the boundaries of legitimate assistance to Iran. The IPKat imagines his friends at WIPO must be greatly relieved, but Merpel wonders whether this exoneration -- at the hands of the UN Sanctions Committee -- will be sufficient to satisfy the United States.
asks IP Draughts' Mark Anderson. The answer is that the question is to broad to answer meaningfully, but that should not let us see how we can make it work better for them. The 1709 Blog continues the debate as to whether the Meltwater v NLA copyright infringement litigation in England and Wales is about breaking the internet: no it isn't, says Simon Clark; yes it is, responds James Mackenzie.
"Is Article 5(3) ... to be interpreted as meaning that the harmful event occurred in one Member State (Member State A) in the case where the tort or delict which forms the subject-matter of the proceedings or from which claims are derived was committed in another Member State (Member State B) and consists in participation in the tort or delict (principal act) committed in the first Member State (Member State A)?"The IPO, which invites comments by email to Policy at email@example.com by not later than 4 October -- that's next Thursday -- has given some clues as to what the underlying litigation is about:
"... The referring court asks whether a court has jurisdiction to adjudicate both on copyright infringement in its territory and also on any contributing act which took place in another member state carried out by a party which assisted in the tort or delict in issue".
And here's some background to another reference. Last week's Friday Fantasies featured a mention of Case C-360/12 Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH v First Note Perfumes N.V. The IPKat wondered what the background to this Bundesgerichtshof reference was. Now he knows, since his friend Kai Hendrik Schmidt-Hern (Lubberger Lehment, Berlin), who firm is involved in the matter on behalf of Coty, has told him. In short, First Note sold a perfume article called "Blue Safe for Women" (illustrated, right) to a German reseller. Kai continues the narrative thus:
"We filed claims against First Note before the Regional Court of Düsseldorf based on Community trade mark (CTM) 3788767 (illustrated, above left)) --
The Regional Court of Düsseldorf turned down the claims due to insufficient similarity of "Blue Safe" to the CTM and to the "Cool Water Woman" design. The High Court of Düsseldorf dismissed the action as well, however this time due to a lack of international jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 93 V CTR and Art. 5 No.3 Regulation 44/2001. According to the taking of evidence before the High Court, the article had changed hands in Belgium and the reseller had imported it to Germany to resell it there. We argued that First Note had contributed to the resale in Germany by selling the article and by knowing that the buyer would resell it in Germany. The High Court, however, held that liability as a contributor to the resale in Germany was subsidiary to liability for the direct infringement in Belgium. In the High Court's opinion, liability as a contributor does not establish international jurisdiction of the German courts, when the same act by the defendant has caused liability for a direct infringement in a different member state.
In its reference decision, the Bundesgerichtshof dismissed the notion that liability as a contributor is subisidiary to that as direct infringer for the purpose of international jurisdiction. It submitted the questions regarding Art. 93 V CTR and Art. 5 No. 3 Reg. 44/2001 as shown below to the ECJ. In our case, "Member State A" obviously is Germany and "Member State B" is Belgium".Merpel is puzzled as to why "Member State A" is obviously Germany. She always thought it was A for Austria, B for Belgium, C for Czech Republic, D for Denmark, E for Estonia, F for France, G for Germany, H for Hellas, I for Ireland ...