scholarly journals AMS Neve and Others (C-172/18): Looking for a Greater ‘Degree of Consistency’ Between the Special Jurisdiction Rule for EU Trade Marks and National Trade Marks

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (4) ◽  
pp. 355-364
Author(s):  
Lydia Lundstedt
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Electronic Display ◽  
Special Rules ◽  
The Right ◽  
National Trade ◽  
Jurisdiction Rule

Abstract The Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) judgment in AMS Neve and others (C-172/18) clarifies how to interpret the concept ‘the Member State in which the act of infringement has been committed or threatened’ in the rule on special jurisdiction in the European Union Trade Mark Regulation. The CJEU held that Art. 125(5) should be interpreted to mean that the right holder may bring an action before an EU trade mark court of the Member State within which the consumers or traders to whom advertising and offers for sale are directed are located, even if the defendant took decisions and steps in another Member State to bring about that electronic display. With this judgment the CJEU introduces a targeting approach, which is something it has declined to do for the corresponding rule in Art. 7(2) Brussels Recast that applies to infringements of national trade marks. While the targeting approach is encouraging, the CJEU will need to clarify it to fulfil the objective of legal certainty. In addition, the CJEU appears to have interpreted Art. 125(5) EUTMR to exclude the Member State of activation. This is in contrast to Art. 7(2) Brussels Recast, which gives a right holder a choice between the Member State of activation and the Member State where the trade mark is registered. The article concludes that there is no justification for these differences in the special rules on jurisdiction applicable to EU trade marks and national trades.

Article 43 CFR

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denis Martin
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Legal Person ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Registered Office ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Role

Any citizen of the Union and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State has the right to refer to the European Ombudsman cases of maladministration in the activities of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union, with the exception of the Court of Justice of the European Union acting in its judicial role.

The case of Konrad Erzberger v TUI AG. Comment to Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber), judgment of 18 July 2017, Case C-566/15

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 333-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Achim Seifert
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Supervisory Board ◽  
Parent Company ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Right To Vote ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Right

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the workers employed in the establishments of a group located in the territory of that Member State are deprived of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections of workers’ representatives to the supervisory board of the parent company of that group, which is established in that Member State, and as the case may be, of the right to act or to continue to act as representative on that board, where those workers leave their employment in such an establishment and are employed by a subsidiary belonging to the same group established in another Member State.

Civis Europeus Sum – Union Citizenship and the Influence of the Court of Justice of the European Union

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-80
Author(s):  
Verica Trstenjak
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Tax Relief ◽  
Personal Rights ◽  
Union Citizenship ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

Since its formation in 1950s as the economic community, the EU has created the monetary union and is increasingly evolving also into a political union – part of which is also a union or Europe of citizens. This article explores the development and the existing EU legislation and case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) on Union citizenship. The article emphasises the importance of the case law of the CJEU for the development of this concept, focusing especially on the case law pertaining to access to social security benefits in another Member State, the rights of students, tax relief, and personal rights such as the right to write a name in a certain way and the right to family life. Case law of the CJEU has, inter alia, confirmed that even economically inactive Union citizens lawfully residing in another Member State have a right to access to social benefits under the same conditions as the Member State’s own nationals. The concept of the Union citizenship is of key importance in the development of EU law, as it expands the scope of the applicability of the provisions on free movement of persons and other fundamental freedoms. New challenges and questions linked to Union citizenship are arising over time, which should also be regulated at the EU level in the future. Therefore, further development of this concept can still be expected in the EU.

scholarly journals Art. 22(4) Brussels i regulation and its successoronly only apply to cases concerned with the actual registration or validityof the listed ip rights. Commentary on the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 5 october 2017, c-341/16 = Artículo 22.4 del Reglamento Bruselas I y su sucesor solo se aplican a los casos relacionados con el registro efectivo o la validez de los derechos de propiedad intelectual enumerados. Comentario de la Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea de 5 de octubre de 2017, c-341/16

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 937
Author(s):  
Kilian Sendlmeier
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
General Provision

Abstract: The CJEU reaffirms its established case law on Art. 22(4) Brussels I Regulation (No. 44/2001) and interprets the provision narrowly. Courts in member states in which patents, trade marks, designs, or similar rights that are required to be deposited or registered, have jurisdiction only in cases that are actually concerned with the registration or validity of these IP rights. A case concerned with the potential ownership of such rights falls within the general provision of Art. 2(1) Brussels I and, therefore, is to be brought before courts in the member state where the defendant is domiciled.Keywords: Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters, Brussels I Regulation (No. 44/2001), Jurisdiction under Art. 2(1) and Art. 22(4) Brussels I Regulation, jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with IP rights, registration of property of a trade markResumen: El Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea mantiene su jurisprudencia establecida sobre el Art. 22.4 del Reglamento (CE) nº 44/2001 de Bruselas I e interpreta este artículo en sentido estricto. Los tribunales de los Estados miembros en los que se exige el depósito o el registro de patentes, marcas, dibujos y modelos u otros derechos similares solo son competentes en los casos en que se la posible titularidad de ese derecho entra en el ámbito de la disposición general del Art. 2.1 del Reglamento Bruselas I y, por lo tanto, debe ser llevado ante los tribunales de aquel estado miembro en el que el demandado esté domiciliado.Palabras clave: Procedimiento prejudicial, Cooperación judicial en materia civil y mercantil, Reglamento (CE) n° 44/2001, Competencia judicial, Artículo 2, apartado 1, Competencia de los órganos jurisdiccionales del domicilio del demandado, Artículo 22, punto 4, Competencia exclusiva en materia detítulos de propiedad intelectual, inscripción como titular de una marca.

Prospects for European Company Law After the Judgment of the European Court of Justice in Centros Ltd

1999 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 203-230
Author(s):  
Karsten Engsig Sørensen
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Company Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Company Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Right ◽  
A Company

The ruling of the European Court of Justice in C-212/97 Centros Ltd v. Erhvervs- og Selskabsstyrelsen suggests that the right of establishment enshrined in Article 43 (ex Article 52) of the EC Treaty includes the right to incorporate a company in the EC Member State with the most favourable company laws. The case provides a platform for arguing that choice of place of incorporation within the European Union is at the absolute discretion of business operators, after which point branches may be set up in any other Member State. Even if all activities are conducted in the Member State where the branch is situated, rather than in the Member State of incorporation, no abuse of Article 43 will arise, and the Member State in which the branch is located may be in no position to impede the establishment of a business which has utilised the vehicle of a foreign company.

Prospects for European Company Law After the Judgment of the European Court of Justice in Centros Ltd

1999 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 203-230
Author(s):  
Karsten Engsig Sørensen
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Company Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Company Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Right ◽  
A Company

The ruling of the European Court of Justice in C-212/97Centros Ltdv.Erhvervs- og Selskabsstyrelsensuggests that the right of establishment enshrined in Article 43 (ex Article 52) of the EC Treaty includes the right to incorporate a company in the EC Member State with the most favourable company laws. The case provides a platform for arguing that choice of place of incorporation within the European Union is at the absolute discretion of business operators, after which point branches may be set up in any other Member State. Even if all activities are conducted in the Member State where the branch is situated, rather than in the Member State of incorporation, no abuse of Article 43 will arise, and the Member State in which the branch is located may be in no position to impede the establishment of a business which has utilised the vehicle of a foreign company.

scholarly journals Overview of recent cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union (July 2019-September 2019)

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 370-377
Author(s):  
Anne Pieter van der Mei
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Social Security ◽  
Member State ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Insurance Cover ◽  
The Status ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right

In the reporting period July-September 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered various rulings that are significant for social security. The ruling that stands out is the one in Van den Berg and others, which concerned the power of a non-competent Member State to grant residents benefits where they lack insurance cover in the competent State. The other cases included in this overview concern the application of the right to equal treatment to social security conventions concluded between a Member State and a third country ( EU), the retention of the status of self-employed person by women who cease to be active due to pregnancy ( Dakneviciute) and the right to export student financial aid ( Aubriet).

Trade Marks in Europe and the Court of Justice of the European Union

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Mühlendahl ◽  
Dimitris Botis ◽  
Spyros Maniatis ◽  
Imogen Wiseman
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Trade Mark Law

The purpose of this chapter is to offer an introduction on the role of the Court of Justice and its effect on the development of trade mark law in Europe.

scholarly journals Facing the 'Bad Faith'

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-127
Author(s):  
Tamar Khuchua
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Bad Faith ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legislative Framework ◽  
Trade Mark Law ◽  
Legislative Changes ◽  
The Eu

The Court of Justice of the European Union has suggested that when the concept set out in the EU regulation is not defined by that regulation, it should be understood according to its usual, everyday meaning. There is no doubt that the understanding of ‘bad faith’ might differ from one person to another and especially from one firm to another. Indeed, ‘bad faith’ in trade mark law might take many different forms which are not easy to detect as the large number of cases concerning the issue of ‘bad faith’ in relation to national and EU trade marks illustrate. By analysing the current legislative framework as well as the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the paper suggests that in order to maintain and even extend the smooth functioning of the EU trade mark system, legislative changes should be introduced. In particular, it is argued that it is reasonable to examine the intention of trade mark applicants already at the application stage in order to avoid the waste of resources and the burden of dealing with the trade marks registered in ‘bad faith’ in the invalidity proceedings post factum and to provide a non-exhaustive list of what elements the ‘bad faith’ can consist of. These amendments should also do good in terms of serving the broader goals of the EU law, which amongst others include, undistorted competition, legal certainty and sound administration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document