Gepubliceerd op maandag 9 oktober 2006
IEF 2723
De weergave van dit artikel is misschien niet optimaal, omdat deze is overgenomen uit onze oudere databank.

Scheepsrecht (2)

Bericht op bordermeasures.com over Rechtbank Rotterdam. 22 augustus 2006, KG ZA 06-591. Adidas International, Atomic Austria, BMW, Canon Ferrari e.v.a. tegen China Shipping Agency  (eerder bericht + vonnis hier):

"Landmark decision on the scope of EC Regulation 1383/2003 in the Netherlands.  On 22 August 2006, the President of the Rotterdam District Court (the Netherlands) handed down a decision which, though in summary proceedings, may have a significant impact on the interpretation of EC Regulation 1383/2003 on border measures in the Benelux, not to say in the European Union. The ruling, however, if not immune to criticism.

(…) The Court’s reasoning concerning the simplified procedure of Article 11 is - unfortunately - not convincing. Indeed, though Articles 28(1) of the Dutch Copyright Act, Article 13bis(1) of the Benelux Trade Marks Act and Article 14bis(1) of the Benelux Design Act do allow right-holders to dispose of goods which they claim infringe their rights, these provisions are presumably only applicable once the goods are recognised by a Court or any other authority entitled to decide on this issue as infringing a copyright, trade mark or design rights. The right-holders’ (or customs’) personal opinion is clearly not relevant when applying these provisions. Therefore, it is all but persuasive to contend, as the Court did, that these provisions provide ground for the simplified procedure set out in Article 11 of the Regulation, and that for that purpose "customs’ suspicion that the goods may infringe intellectual property rights should be sufficient to presume that they do infringe such rights".”

Lees het volledige commentaar hier