Clik here to view.
Pinckney: Jääskinen AG suggests ‘focus and target’ as criterion for jurisdiction
I reported just short of a year ago on the reference in Pinckney, Case C-170/12. The Advocate General opined on 13 June. Jääskinen AG first of all suggests the questions are inadmissible – let’s hope...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Jurisdiction in copyright infringement with the involvement of the internet –...
[postscript 4 February 2014: the Cour de Cassation held on 22 January 2014, following the ECJ’s lead.] I reported earlier on the AG’s Opinion in Pinckney. The ECJ held this morning. The questions were...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Rolex v Blomqvist. ECJ confirms irrelevance of ‘focus and target’ or...
After its withholding of mere accessibility of a site as a jurisdictional trigger for copyright infringement in Pinckney, the ECJ has now accepted that the mere acquisition of a good by a person...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Jurisdiction, intellectual property and the internet. Might CRUZ VILLALÓN AG...
Let me answer the question immediately: that is unlikely. It is however an interesting prospect and, who knows, might be a start. CRUZ VILLALÓN AG’s Opinion in Pez Hejduk, case C-441/13 (at the time of...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Hejduk: Copyright infringement and jurisdiction. The ECJ entertains much less...
I have reviewed the AG’s opinion in Hejduk here. The AG’s Opinion was exciting for it cited, even if only in a specific (IP; more specifically copyright) context, the difficulty in identifying locus...
View ArticleClik here to view.
And the winner is….National law. Saugmandsgaard ØE AG in Austro-Mechana on...
Determining whether a legal relationship is one in tort, for the purposes of (now) Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation, is in principle subject to autonomous interpretation. National law...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Austro Mechana: the CJEU edges closer to contract and tort dovetailing under...
The CJEU today held in Case C-572/14 Austro Mechana. I reported earlier on the AG’s Opinion (which was issued not too long ago). That post also refers readers to Tobias Lutzi‘s analysis. He points...
View ArticleClik here to view.
A v M (Austria): Copyright infringement, locus delicti commissi in case of...
For your second conflicts reading of the day I thought I should serve something more substantial. In A (an Austrian company) v M (a company located in Luxembourg) the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster...
View ArticleRulings on costs and their impact on the effet utile of EU civil procedure....
In [2017] EWHC 2541 (IPEC) Pablo Star Media v Richard Bowen the issue was one over copyright infringement relating to a photograph of Dylan Thomas. Of interest to this blog is not the copyright issue...
View ArticleClutching at jurisdictional straws as short as hotpants. Suing Google for...
Hotlinking is explained at para 17 of [2018] EWHC 550 (Ch) Wheat v Alphabet /Google Inc and Monaco Telecom. (Cross-reference is also made to the related main case against Monaco Telecom, [2017] EWHC...
View ArticleHigh Court confirms refusal to sue Google in the UK for its (alleged)...
I have earlier reviewed the decision of Chief Master Marsh in [2018] EWHC 550 (Ch) Wheat v Alphabet /Google Inc and Monaco Telecom. In Wheat v Google LLC [2020] EWHC 27 (Ch), this decision was...
View ArticleForum non and infringing copyright in the air: The Performing Rights Society...
Performing Right Society Ltd v Qatar Airways Group QCS [2020] EWHC 1872 (Ch) concerns the infringement or not of copyright via Qatar Airways’ inflight entertainment system known as “Oryx One”. Holding...
View ArticleGrand Production v GO4YU. Szpunar AG (not, due to suggested inadmissibility)...
Szpunar AG opined a few weeks back in C-423/21 Grand Production v GO4YU ea. The case involves a variety of issues related to streaming and VPNs, many of which concern telecoms law yet one is of...
View Article
