Case C‑681/13

Diageo Brands BV

v

Simiramida-04 EOOD

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Recognition and enforcement of judgments — Grounds for refusing enforcement — Infringement of public policy in the State in which recognition is sought — Judgment given by a court in another Member State contrary to EU law on trade marks — Directive 2004/48/EC — Enforcement of intellectual property rights — Legal costs’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 16 July 2015

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Recognition and enforcement of judgments — Grounds for refusing enforcement — Infringement of the public policy of the Member State in which recognition is sought — Conditions — None

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Recognition and enforcement of judgments — Grounds for refusing enforcement — Infringement of the public policy of the Member State in which recognition is sought — Conditions — Determination by the courts of the Member State in which recognition is sought — Limits — Judicial review by the Court

See the text of the decision. (see paras 34-37)

See the text of the decision. (see paras 40-44)

Article 34(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a judgment given in a Member State is contrary to EU law does not justify that judgment’s not being recognised in another Member State on the grounds that it infringes public policy in that State where the error of law relied on does not constitute a manifest breach of a rule of law regarded as essential in the EU legal order and therefore in the legal order of the Member State in which recognition is sought or of a right recognised as being fundamental in those legal orders. That is not the case of an error affecting the application of a provision such as Article 5(3) of First Directive 89/104 relating to trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area. In that regard, Article 5(3) of Directive 89/104 is part of a directive seeking to achieve minimal harmonisation whose purpose is in part to approximate the different trade mark laws of the Member States. It cannot be inferred that an error in the implementation of that directive would be at variance to an unacceptable degree with the EU legal order inasmuch as it would infringe a fundamental principle of that legal order. In addition, when determining whether there is a manifest breach of public policy in the State in which recognition is sought, the court of that State must take account of the fact that, save where specific circumstances make it too difficult, or impossible, to make use of the legal remedies in the Member State of origin, the individuals concerned must avail themselves of all the legal remedies available in that Member State with a view to preventing such a breach before it occurs. The rules on recognition and enforcement laid down by Regulation No 44/2001 are based on mutual trust in the administration of justice in the European Union. It is that trust which the Member States accord to one another’s legal systems and judicial institutions which permits the inference that, in the event of the misapplication of national law or EU law, the system of legal remedies in each Member State, together with the preliminary ruling procedure provided for in Article 267 TFEU, affords a sufficient guarantee to individuals. (see paras 48-52, 63, 64, 68, operative part 1)

The provisions of Directive 2004/48 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights are not intended to govern all aspects of intellectual property rights, but only those aspects inherent, first, in the enforcement of those rights and, secondly, in infringement of them, by requiring that there must be effective legal remedies designed to prevent, terminate or rectify any infringement of an existing intellectual property right. It is apparent from the measures, procedures and remedies provided for in Directive 2004/48 that the legal remedies designed to ensure the protection of intellectual property rights are supplemented by actions for damages which are closely linked to them. Thus, a procedure which concerns compensation for the injury caused as a result of a seizure at first ordered by the judicial authorities of a Member State for the purpose of preventing an imminent infringement of an intellectual property right, then annulled by those same authorities on the grounds that the existence of an infringement had not been established, is the corollary of the action brought by the proprietor of the intellectual property right for the purpose of obtaining the imposition of a measure with immediate effect which enabled it, without awaiting a decision on the substance of the case, to prevent any possible infringement of its right. Such an action for compensation corresponds to the guarantees laid down by that directive in favour of the defendant, as a counterweight to the adoption of a provisional measure which affected its interests. It follows that such a procedure falls within the scope of Directive 2004/48. (see paras 73-76)