Should UK opt for Rome?

The UK's Ministry of Justice issued yesterday a press release, 'Rome I - should the UK opt in?', and announced yet another consultation process.

Right: the British position on opting into Rome I - note the straight face and stiff upper lip ...

By way of background, the 1980 Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual relations was implemented into UK law by the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990. In December 2005 the European Commission released the original Rome I Regulation [for most recent text see here], which the UK chose not to opt into. Subsequent negotiations on Rome I ended with political agreement among Member States in December 2007: it will be adopted at the next meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council (some time in the next few months) and the main provisions of the Regulation will come into force 18 months later.

According to the press release:

"... The Rome I proposal will provide clarity over which law applies if a dispute arises over a contract made between people or businesses from different countries [the IPKat says, this obviously applies to all European cross-border IP licences, coexistence agreements, negotiated dispute settlements etc], allowing cross border trade to continue with confidence.

When the European Commission first announced the proposals in 2005, the UK Government took the unusual step of opting out of the proposals, as they would not have been in the interests of UK businesses. However, following intense negotiations, a substantially revised and hugely improved version has now been agreed [just goes to show how important it is to observe the principle known as "enlightened self-interest" ...]. ...."
Not wishing to burden British readers with having to read about the distress they might have suffered if the British had opted for Rome I immediately, the press release gives no details as to what so troubled them about the original version and why the current version is better.

Rome II, the Regulation on the applicable law in non-contractual obligations [including passing off, it seems, but NOT -- it seems -- rights of privacy and publicity or the registration of company names], can be read here

The IPKat feels there's more to this story than meets the eye. If any reader has been involved in the issues relating to the late UK adoption of Rome I, particularly from an IP perspective, the Kats will all be thrilled to hear about it. Please post comments below or email the IPKat here.
Should UK opt for Rome? Should UK opt for Rome? Reviewed by Jeremy on Thursday, April 03, 2008 Rating: 5


  1. Rome II covers infringement of intellectual property generally and not just passing off. It will present interesting problems if the Community Patent Court is set up and litigates European patents, rather than Community patents.

  2. Quite right. When I wrote "includes", I'd already taken the statutory rights for granted. I should have made it clear first time.


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:

Powered by Blogger.