Abstract
This chapter aims to explain the difficulties that exist when applying the rules of jurisdiction and conflict of laws to disputes related to infringements of intellectual property committed on the Internet. For this purpose, we analyse six judgements of French courts involving Google. As will be seen, the European Court of Justice is expected to play a very important role in providing a uniform interpretation of these rules. Thanks to this, the legal certainty that Internet service providers need to carry out their activities in Europe will be increased.
Senior Lecturer Private International Law, Lecturer and Coordinator of the IT Module of the Magister Lvcentinvs on Intellectual Property.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In other branches of commerce such as the international sales of goods, international conventions––e. g. the Vienna Convention on the international sales of goods of 1980––play a much more important role.
- 2.
Regulation 44/2001 on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ L 12, 16 January 2001). Denmark is not a Member State for the purpose of this Regulation. However, the Regulation applies in the Nordic country pursuant to an International Agreement signed between the European Union and Denmark (OJ L 299, 16 Nov 2005). In addition, in the relations between the European Union, Norway, Switzerland and Iceland, a similar regulation established in the Lugano Convention (OJ L 339, 21 Dec 2007) applies.
- 3.
Regulation 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (OJ L 177, 4 Jul 2008).
- 4.
Regulation 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (OJ L 199, 31 Jul 2007).
- 5.
This situation may change in the near future if the Commission Proposal to amend the Brussels I Regulation is adopted. The rules on jurisdiction in the Proposal cover not only disputes where the defendant is domiciled in a Member State but also those where the defendant is domiciled in a third State. Being so, legal certainty for non-EU domiciled companies will increase: they will only have to consult one body of rules to know in which case they can be sued in the European Union and before what courts. See Proposal for a Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, Doc COM (2010) 748 final.
- 6.
Available at http://legalis.net/spip.php?page=breves-article&id_article=3040 (last Accessed 22 Aug 2011).
- 7.
Available at http://www.legalis.net/spip.php?page=breves-article&id_article=3039 (last Accessed 22 Aug 2011).
- 8.
Available at http://www.legalis.net/spip.php?page=breves-article&id_article=2342 (last Accessed 22 Aug 2011).
- 9.
Available at http://www.legalis.net/spip.php?page=breves-article&id_article=2776 (last Accessed 22 Aug 2011).
- 10.
http://www.legalis.net/spip.php?page=jurisprudence-decision&id_article=2812 (last Accessed 22 Aug 2011).
- 11.
http://www.juriscom.net/documents/caparis20110126.pdf (last Accessed 22 Aug 2011).
- 12.
During that time, Dutch courts were open to adopting pan-European injunctions in cases of infringements of a European patent committed in multiple states by multiple companies belonging to the same group. Plaintiffs chose the Netherlands to benefit from the Kort Geding, a very fast summary procedure. The possibility to apply for those injunctions was restricted by the introduction of the “spider on the web” doctrine: in order to declare jurisdiction in those cases, the company of the group taking the decisions must be located in the Netherlands. Finally, the ECJ declared this doctrine incompatible with Article 6 (1) Brussels Convention in the Judgement of 13 Jul 2006, C-539/03, “Roche Nederlanden c. Primus”.
- 13.
In cases where the action concerns the validity of an industrial property right, Article 22 (4) provides for the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State where the right is registered.
- 14.
Two conditions must be met: (a) every defendant is domiciled in the Member States; (b) “the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconciliable judgments resulting from separate proceedings”.
- 15.
This is only applicable when the parent company is domiciled in a Member State. Furthermore, for the courts to declare jurisdiction the action shall be related to the business carried out by the establishment of that company.
- 16.
Ancel 2001, p 3.
- 17.
ECJ Judgment 30 Nov 1976, C-21/76, “Bier c. Mines de Potasse d’Alsace”.
- 18.
ECJ Judgment 7 Mar 1995, C-68/93, “Shevill c. Presse Alliance”.
- 19.
This first ground of jurisdiction opened by the interpretation of Article 5 (3) in “Fiona Shevill” is seldom applied in practice. First, the place where the publisher is established usually coincides with the domicile of the defendant and, in those cases, Article 2––and not Article 5 (3)––applies. Second, if the publisher publishes the information through an establishment located in a Member State different to that of its domicile, the courts of the first Member State can declare jurisdiction to hear about all the harm caused by the infringement on the basis of Article 5 (5)––recourse to Article 5 (3) is not necessary either.
- 20.
Needless to say, this is one of the purposes of all legislative instruments adopted by the EU in this field and by international convention ratified by the EU and the Member States.
- 21.
See for example EJC Judgments of 10 February 2009, C-185/07, “West Tankers”, of 13 Jul 2006, C-539/03, “Roche Nederlanden c. Primus” and of 13 Jul 2006, C-4/03, “GAT c. LuK”.
- 22.
In this sense, it shall be recalled that both the Community Trade Mark Regulation and the Community Design Regulation establish the same limitation to the forum delicti commissi in Articles 98 (2) and 83 (2).
- 23.
Judgement of 9 December 2003, “Société Castellblanch c. Société Champagne Louis Roederer”, Rev. cr. dr. int. pr., vol 93, 2004, pp 632 ff, comments by O. Chacard.
- 24.
Judgement of 20 March 2007, “Soc. HSM Schuhmarketing c. Soc. Gep Industries”, Rev. cr. dr. int. pr., vol 97, 2008, pp 323 ff, comments by E. Treppoz.
- 25.
One may say that because of this latter argument, the decision will never be recognised in the State where the defendant is domiciled. That is not the case: in the European Union courts of other Member States will not find in the Brussels I Regulation a ground to deny the recognition of these judgements. Furthermore, the plaintiff might not need to recognize the judgement in another country if his only purpose is to block the commercialisation of a product in the country where that website is accessible.
- 26.
Actually, there are several examples of lower level courts that did not follow this case law at all. See, for instance, Judgement of the Cour d’Appel d’Orléans of 6 May 2003, “Les Folies Céramiques c. Mridul Enterprises et Trademark Tiles”, Rev. cr. dr. int. pr., 2004, p 139 ff, comments Gaudemet Tallon.
- 27.
Further explanations on the substantive aspects of this case are provided in Chap. 3.
- 28.
This new trend is confirmed in Judgement of Cour de Cassation of 29 Mar 2011, “eBay Europe v. Maceo”, available at http://legalis.net/spip.php?page=jurisprudence-decision&id_article=3142 (last accessed 22 Aug 2011).
- 29.
ECJ Judgement of 7 Dec 2010, Joined cases C-585/08, “Pammer” and C-144/09, “Hotel Alpenhof”.
- 30.
Paras 74–76. The ECJ makes reference to the joint declaration of the Council and the Commission on Articles 15 (1) (c) Brussels I Regulation, reproduced in Recital 24 of R. Rome II, where the same conclusion is reached.
- 31.
Opinion of the Advocate General of 29 Mar 2011. At the time of writing this article, the Opinion was not available in English.
- 32.
Para 63.
- 33.
“Information is not objectively relevant by the fact that the publisher is voluntarily directing it towards a particular Member State”. Para 62.
- 34.
Para 57.
- 35.
Actually, this can also be problematic in infringements of personal rights. In certain cases the reputation of a person can be harm not in a place different from that where he lives. For instance, Cesc Fabregas plays football for Arsenal and lives in London. Any injurious information about him in a Spanish magazine will harm his reputation in Spain, not in the place where he lives. Or maybe the information harms his reputation both in Spain and the UK. Where would the “centre of gravity of the conflict” be located in these cases? Legal certainty is not really ensured with the new criterion on the interpretation of forum delicti commissi.
- 36.
See Articles 98 (2) and 83 (2).
- 37.
Para 65.
- 38.
Para 79.
- 39.
Para 80.
- 40.
Para 83.
- 41.
Para 84.
- 42.
All these evidences are identified at para 65.
- 43.
As we explain below, the Cour d’Appel understood that Google’s use of images as thumbnails is legal in accordance with French Law as well, since the Safer Harbor principles of Directive 2000/31 on e-commerce apply.
- 44.
Available at http://legifrance.gouv.fr/telecharger_rtf.do?idTexte=JURITEXT000017627214&origine=juriJudi (last Accessed 22 Aug 2011).
- 45.
Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 Sept 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission (OJ L 248, 6.10.1993, pp 15–21). Article 1 (2).
- 46.
- 47.
European Commission, Follow-up to the Green Paper on copyright and related rights in the information society, Doc COM(96) 568 final.
- 48.
About these arguments, see Desurmont 2001, pp 17–27.
- 49.
This is also sustained in previous judgements of the Cour de cassation such as Judgement of 5th Mar 2002, “SISRO c. Ampersand Software BV”, Rev. cr. dr. int. pr., vol 92, 2003, pp 440 – 446, comments by Bischoff, J-M.
- 50.
- 51.
OJ 343, 17 December 2010.
- 52.
See Van Eechoud 2003, 125 and references in De Miguel 2007, p 380. A similar interpretation is established in the WIPO Guide to the Berne Convention, Geneva, 1978. If the complaint for copyright infringement is filed before the court where the damage occurred, the law of the court seized would be applied. If the complaint is filed before the court of a different country, such court should apply its conflict-of-law rules to determine the applicable law. (p 36).
- 53.
EJC Judgement 30 june 2005, C-28/04, “Tod’s”.
- 54.
According to Torremans and Fawcett 1998, p 467, “What is being determined in Article 5 is the substantive level of protection for those works that have previously qualified for protection under the Convention. The substantive right and the conditions under which the work can be used have to be determined first”.
- 55.
In this sense Moura 2008, p 273: “Il revient à la lex loci protectionis de régir la création, le contenu et l’extinction du droit d’auteur, sa cession et sa soumission à des charges, aussi bien que les sanctions de sa violation. La titularité du droit d’auteur, les droit contractuels d’utilisation de l’ouvre, la responsabilité civiles et les autres obligations extracontractuelles nées de l’utilisation illicite des biens en cause et les moyens juridictionnels de protection du droit violé sont cependant, au moins en partie, soumis à d’autres lois ».
- 56.
Moura 2008, p 346.
- 57.
Actually, this is the established case law since Judgement of Cour de cassation of 22 Dec 1959, “Le chant du monde”, Rev. cr. dr. int. pr. 1960, p 361 ss.
- 58.
The ECJ also has competence to interpret the Berne Convention. However, this competence exclusively refers to the relationship between EU Law and the Convention, and not to the interpretation on how to apply its provisions.
References
Ancel M-E (2001) Contrefaçon de marque sur un site web: quelle competence intracommunautaire pour les tribunaux français? In: Droit et Technique. Etudes a la mémoire du Xavier Linant de Bellefond, Paris, Licet, 2001, pp 1 and ff
Bergé J-S (2000) Droit d’auteur, conflits de lois et réseaux numériques: rétrospective et prospective. Rev. Crit. Droit Int. Privé, num 89, pp 357 and ff
Carrascosa Gonzalez J (2004) Conflicts of Laws in a Centenary Convention: Berne Convention 9th September 1886 for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. In: Feitschrift für Erik Jayme, Munich, Sellier pp 105 and ff
De Miguel Asensio P (2007) La lex loci protectionis tras el Reglamento Roma II. Anuario español Derecho internacional privado vol. 7, pp 376 and ff
Desurmont T (2001) La Communauté Européenne, les droits des auteurs et la Societé de l’information. RIDA vol 190, pp 3 and ff
Esteve González L (2006) Aspectos internacionales de las infracciones de derechos de autor en Internet. Granada, Comares
Fernandez Masiá F (1996) Protección internacional de los programas de ordenador. Granada, Comares
Ginsburg J C (1998) The Private International Law of Copyright in an Era of Technological Change. Recueil des cours de l’Academie de Droit international de La Haye vol 273, pp 243 and ff
Moura Vicente D (2008) La propriété intellectuelle en Droit international privé. Recueil des cours de l’Academie de Droit international de La Haye vol 335
Van Eechoud M (2003) Choice of Law in Copyright and Related Rights: Alternatives to the Lex Protectionis. Kluwer, The Hague
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors/editors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lopez Tarruella, A. (2012). The International Dimension of Google Activities: Private International Law and the Need of Legal Certainty. In: Lopez-Tarruella, A. (eds) Google and the Law. Information Technology and Law Series, vol 22. T.M.C. Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-846-0_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-846-0_12
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press
Print ISBN: 978-90-6704-845-3
Online ISBN: 978-90-6704-846-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)
