tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post6185299052449847645..comments2024-03-29T11:10:02.290+00:00Comments on The IPKat: That DHL case againVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-37175464560429435122009-09-03T12:32:21.521+01:002009-09-03T12:32:21.521+01:00In my opinion, if the French Court heard the case ...In my opinion, if the French Court heard the case on the basis of Article 97.1 to 3 of Regulation 207/2009 (ex 40/94), which seems to be the case, Chronopost should have been granted a pan-European relief and the penalty, despite the French Law on sanctions (which I do not control)should have regarded the whole European Community. <br />Now, seeing the names of the defendant (DHL France only I guess - but I did not read the decision), it seems that the relief does not regard each subsidiary of DHL in Europe or the DHL mother company. In this case, Chronopost should not be entitled to obtain the penalty amount from future acts committed by any other DHL related company which is not DHL France and I understand that DHL may avoid the use of the infringing mark by its French subsidiary in the French territory and let the others continuing using the infringing mark in the rest of the countries if so advantageous. <br />Notwithstanding the above, legally speaking, I think that the ruling is not correct and the Court should not limit the consequences of the prohibition (the sanction, the penalty) to a single country. <br /><br />FabrizioAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com