LG Düsseldorf; 2016-03-10; 14d O 3/15
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:LGD:2016:0310.14D.O3.15.00
Date: 2016-03-10
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82016DE0310(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
Two companies, a parent company and its subsidiary (hereinafter ‘the plaintiffs’), who sold fashion clothing worldwide online, filed an action against defendants 1 to 6 (hereinafter ‘the defendants’), who either belonged directly to the Q Fashion Group or were its representative bodies, seeking the issuance of a cease and desist order, the withdrawal of an application for the registration of a trademark, the provision of information, compensation for damage and the refund of costs for legal representation incurred prior to the court proceedings. The action was based on the provisions of antitrust law and the ban on unfair competition.
The plaintiffs were selling, among other items, products under their private label ‘B4’ and complained that some of the defendants had, directly or through other partners, filed applications for the B4 sign to be registered with several trademark offices worldwide. The defendants’ aim was to conduct trademarks disputes with the plaintiffs for the purpose of obtaining significant payments from the plaintiffs or their business shares.
The Landgericht Düsseldorf (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) held international jurisdiction under Article 4(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1). The jurisdiction of the German court was also applicable to three defendants who were not domiciled in Germany due to the fact that they had not contested the initiation of the proceedings under Article 26(1), first sentence, of the Brussels I Regulation (recast).
The plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 were competitors on the German market. Therefore, the case was closely connected to Germany and under Article 6(1) and (3a) of the Rome II Regulation (2) German law was applicable. There were no statutory provisions that would forbid the legal disputes from being conducted and it was not possible to forbid the examination by a court of an allegedly existing claim.
The action was found to be unjustified with respect to the ban or withdrawal of the registration of the label ‘B4’. On the German market and the market of the European Union, plaintiff 1 was already the owner of the label and therefore there was no concrete risk evident. The risk of the defendants registering the B4 label worldwide was also not evident, even though the defendants had already registered the label in some countries. The plaintiffs did not present any concrete arguments in respect of the trademark application that would convince the Court of First Instance to determine the applicable foreign law.
In addition, further claims pursued by the plaintiffs through the action were found to be unjustified. Either these claims were based on alleged claims for compensation under another actions, which could not be verified, or the plaintiffs failed to prove their arguments sufficiently.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the plaintiffs’ action.
(1) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
(2) Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II).