Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

Case C‑341/16

Hanssen Beleggingen BV

v

Tanja Prast-Knipping

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction — Article 2(1) — Jurisdiction of the courts of the place where the defendant is domiciled — Article 22(4) — Exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of intellectual property rights — Proceedings to determine whether a person was correctly registered as the proprietor of a trade mark)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 5 October 2017

1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters—Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters—Regulation No 44/2001—Provisions of that regulation regarded as equivalent to those of the Brussels Convention—Interpretation of those provisions in accordance with the case-law of the Court relating to the Convention—Exclusive jurisdiction—Proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of intellectual property rights—Meaning—Independent interpretation—Restrictive interpretation

   (Convention of 27 September 1968; Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 22(4))
2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters—Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters—Regulation No 44/2001—Exclusive jurisdiction—Proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of intellectual property rights—Proceedings concerning the ownership of a registered trade mark—Not included

   (Council Regulation No 44/2001, Art. 22(4))

1. See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 30-33)
2. Article 22(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as not applying to proceedings to determine whether a person was correctly registered as the proprietor of a trade mark.

   Proceedings in which there is no dispute regarding the registration of the trade mark as such or its validity are covered neither by the words ‘proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of … trade marks’ in Article 22(4) of Regulation No 44/2001, nor the objective underlying that provision. In that regard, the Court points out that the question of the individual estate to which an intellectual property right belongs is not, generally, closely linked in fact and law to the place where that right has been registered.

   (see paras 37, 43, operative part)

[Top](#document1)