SPEAKING WITH ONE VOICE? JURISDICTION REPORT: UK
NATIONAL COURTS: Leigh Ellis Gillhams Solicitors LLP
Te Community trademark (CTM) system is premised on the unitary character trademark protection established by Council Regulation 40/94/ EC. Te regulation establishes the system whereby trademark protection may be established across the European Union. In a decision handed down on April 12, 2011, the European Court of Justice considered (1) the unitary character of the Community trademark and (2) the coercive measures imposed by a Community trademark court and how those coercive measures may be enforced in another member state where the courts of the other member states do not have the same powers of enforcement as the original court.
Background
In DHL Express France SAS v Chronopost SA, Chronopost was the proprietor of both French and Community trademarks for the sign ‘Webshipping’ in respect to logistics and data transmission, telecommunications, transport by road, collecting mail and express mail management. Te Court of Appeal in Paris found that use of the sign Webshipping to designate an express mail management service infringed national and Community trademarks. Te court made an order restraining the use of the sign and requiring DHL to pay periodic penalties should the infringement be repeated—under French law. Te court was silent on whether it extended to the entire Community or only France; Chronopost appealed to the French Cour de Cassation, which then referred questions to the European Court of Justice, including: did the order extend to the entire area of the European Union, or only France, and are coercive measures (in this case a financial penalty payable by DHL for continued infringement) imposed by the national law of the member state applicable in other member states where the order has force?
Unitary character of Community trademarks
Tere was no question of the unitary character of Community trademarks established by the regulation or the extent of protection available under the regulation arising from that unitary character. Article 1 of the regulation states: “[A Community trademark] […] shall have equal effect throughout the Community […] it shall not be registered, transferred or surrendered […] save in respect to the whole Community.” Te ECJ went on to decide that it was consistent with the objectives of the regulation that uniform protection applies across the Community, regardless of the Community trademark court imposing the remedy. Te general rule applied that decisions of Community trademark courts extend to the entire EU and not simply the jurisdiction of the national court.
www.worldipreview.com
Limits to protection
National courts acting as Community trademark courts may have their own local jurisdictional limitations. Tey are nonetheless empowered to hear trademark disputes for one or more member states, or disputes extending over the entire EU. If, however, the proprietor limits its action to particular territories or the linguistic or conceptual interpretation of the trademark in suit does not affect the functions of the trademark, the court must limit any remedy granted accordingly. For instance, if a Community trademark is descriptive in one or more of member states, it may receive limited protection in an action for infringement. It is for the defendant to raise such limitations prior to judgment, and not aſter an order has been made.
Mirroring prohibitions across member states
Consequently, a Community trademark court seised of a Community trademark dispute is at liberty to select such measures as are available under its national law to enforce judgments. Prohibitions may be enforced by recognition of the judgment by virtue of Article 33(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001. But national courts may have powers specific to their jurisdiction. In Chronopost, the court had the power to impose periodic penalty payments upon defendants for continuing infringement—a remedy unknown to English law. In these circumstances, the ECJ held that the courts of other member states should discharge their jurisdiction to “attain the objective pursued by the [coercive] measure by having recourse to the relevant provisions of its national law which are such as to ensure that the prohibition originally issued is complied with in an equivalent manner”. Te end is compliance with the prohibition imposed by the original court rather than assimilating the relief for breach of the prohibition. In circumstances where the national law of another member state cannot impose the relief ordered by the original court, it is open to the court to select from its own law measures to enforce the original prohibition.
Lastly, although the Community trademark court may not technically have jurisdiction over the entire EU, the judgment of the national court acting as a Community trademark court may be enforced by virtue of Article 33(1), effectively giving the relevant court jurisdiction on a pan- European basis.
Leigh Ellis is a partner at Gillhams Solicitors LLP. He can be contacted at:
le@gillhams.com
World Intellectual Property Review May/June 2011 71
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84