Themanummer IE van het NIPR
Het tijdschrift Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht (NIPR) heeft onlangs een themanummer gewijd aan IE en IPR (aflevering 2016/4), met de volgende vijf bijdragen:
- Paul L.C. Torremans, ‘The law applicable to copyright infringement on the Internet’, p. 687-695 (sample).
- Sierd J. Schaafsma, ‘Multiple defendants in intellectual property litigation’, p. 696-705. (sample)
- Michael C.A. Kant, ‘The Unified Patent Court and the Brussels I bis Regulation’, p. 706-715.
- Mireille van Eechoud, Bridging the gap: private international law principles for intellectual property law’, p. 716-723.
- Dario Moura Vicente, ‘The territoriality principle in intellectual property revisited’, p. 724-729.
Zie inhoudsopgave
Sierd J. Schaafsma, ‘Editorial: Private International law and intellectual property’, p. 685-686 (guest editor)
Paul L.C. Torremans, ‘The Law applicable to copyright infringement on the Internet’, p. 687-695
This article looks at the law applicable to copyright infringement on the Internet. In order to do so we need to look first of all at the rules concerning the applicable law for copyright infringement in general. Here the starting point is the Berne Convention. Its provisions give an indication of the direction in which this debate is going, but we will see that they merely provide starting points. We then move on to the approach in Europe under the Rome II Regulation and here more details become clear. Essentially, the existing rule boils down to a lex loci protectionis approach, which is in conformity with the starting point that is found in the Berne Convention. It is however doubtful whether such a country by country approach can work well in an Internet context and suggestions are made to improve the legal framework by adding a rule for ubiquitous infringement and a de minimis rule. Finally, we also briefly look at the issues surrounding the cross-border portability of online content services and the impact that the current focus on these may have in terms of the choice of law.
Sierd J. Schaafsma, ‘Multiple defendants in intellectual property litigation’, p. 696-705
One of the key provisions in international intellectual property litigation is the forum connexitatis in Article 8(1) of the Brussel I bis Regulation. This jurisdiction provision makes it possible to concentrate infringement claims against various defendants, domiciled in different EU Member States, before one court: the court of the domicile of any one of them. The criteria of Article 8(1) are, however, complicated and the case law of the Court of Justice is not always very clear. This contribution seeks to explore, evaluate and comment on the current state of affairs in respect of Article 8(1) in the context of intellectual property litigation.
Michael C.A. Kant, ‘The Unified Patent Court and the Brussels I bis Regulation’, p. 706-715
According to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA), the establishment of a Unified Patent Court (UPC) for the settlement of disputes relating to European patents and European patents with unitary effect also depends upon amendments to the Brussels I bis Regulation (BR) concerning its relationship with the UPCA. In light of this, the European legislator established new Articles 71a to 71d BR. Unfortunately, these provisions have effected uncertainties and schematic inconsistencies within the Brussels system. Besides, inconsistencies have been established between jurisdiction rules of the BR and competence rules of the UPCA. The most notable flaws in this respect are discussed in this contribution.
Michelle van Eechoud, ‘Bridging the gap: Private international law principles for intellectual property law’, p. 716-723
This past decade has seen a veritable surge of development of ‘soft law’ private international instruments for intellectual property. A global network has been formed made up of academics and practitioners who work on the intersection of these domains. This article examines the synthesizing work of the International Law Association’s Committee on intellectual property and private international law. Now that its draft Guidelines on jurisdiction, applicable law and enforcement are at an advanced stage, what can be said about consensus and controversy about dealing with transborder intellectual property disputes in the information age? What role can principles play in a world where multilateral rulemaking on intellectual property becomes ever deeply politicized and framed as an issue of trade? Arguably, private international law retains it facilitating role and will continue to attract the attention of intellectual property law specialists as a necessary integral part of regulating transborder information flows.
Dario Moura Vicente, ‘The territoriality principle in intellectual property revisited’, p. 724-729
This essay revisits territoriality as the founding principle of international IP law. Both copyright and rights in patents and trademarks were essentially conceived by the drafters of the Berne and Paris Conventions as territorial rights which should be governed by the law of the country for which their protection is claimed. This is still the starting point of the relevant provisions in several recent soft law instruments adopted, inter alia, by the American Law Institute and the European Max Planck Group on Conflict of Laws in IP. An important deviation therefrom has, however, been enshrined in conflict of jurisdictions rules that allow for the extraterritorial enforcement of IP rights. Other relevant developments in this respect concern Internet uses of protected works, with regard to which certain restrictions to territoriality have been adopted in order to promote the applicability of a single law to online infringements. The liability of Internet service providers should, in turn, be governed by the law of the country where the centre of gravity of their activities is located, not necessarily the lex protectionis. Other alternatives to the lex protectionis, such as the lex originis or the lex contractus, have gained prominence concerning the initial ownership of unregistered IP rights. And a choice of the applicable law by the parties has been allowed in respect of remedies for infringement acts, as well as of contracts providing for the creation or the transfer of securities in IP rights. A mitigated form of territoriality has thus emerged in recent IP law instruments, which allows for greater diversity and flexibility in conflict of laws solutions in this field.
Inhoud 2016, aflevering 4
Artikelen
2016-466 Bridging the gap: Private international law principles for intellectual property law
2016-467 The territoriality principle in intellectual property revisited
2016-468 Private international law and intellectual property
2016-469 The law applicable to copyright infringement on the Internet
2016-470 The Unified Patent Court and the Brussels I bis Regulation
2016-471 Multiple defendants in intellectual property litigation
Rechtspraak
2016-365 Hof van Justitie EU 13-10-2016
2016-366 Hof van Justitie EU 27-10-2016
2016-367 Hoge Raad 09-09-2016
2016-368 Hoge Raad 23-09-2016
2016-369 Hof Amsterdam 21-06-2016
2016-370 Hof Amsterdam 19-07-2016
2016-371 Hof Amsterdam 19-07-2016
2016-372 Hof Arnhem-Leeuwarden, locatie Leeuwarden 10-05-2016
2016-373 Hof Arnhem-Leeuwarden, locatie Leeuwarden 10-05-2016
2016-374 Hof Arnhem-Leeuwarden, locatie Leeuwarden 23-06-2016
2016-375 Hof Den Haag 08-06-2016
2016-376 Hof Den Haag 15-06-2016
2016-377 Hof Den Haag 13-07-2016
2016-378 Hof Den Haag 13-07-2016
2016-379 Hof Den Haag 27-07-2016
2016-380 Hof Den Haag 31-08-2016
2016-381 Hof Den Haag 12-09-2016
2016-382 Rb. Amsterdam 10-09-2015
2016-383 Rb. Amsterdam 25-05-2016
2016-384 Rb. Amsterdam 08-06-2016
2016-385 Rb. Amsterdam 29-06-2016
2016-386 Rb. Den Haag 29-03-2016
2016-387 Rb. Den Haag 25-04-2016
2016-388 Rb. Den Haag 09-05-2016
2016-389 Rb. Den Haag 30-05-2016
2016-390 Rb. Den Haag 30-05-2016
2016-391 Rb. Den Haag 01-06-2016
2016-392 Rb. Den Haag 16-06-2016
2016-393 Rb. Den Haag 04-07-2016
2016-394 Rb. Gelderland, zittingsplaats Arnhem 27-07-2016
2016-395 Rb. Midden-Nederland, locatie Lelystad 30-03-2016
2016-396 Rb. Noord-Holland, locatie Alkmaar 01-06-2016
2016-397 Rb. Noord-Holland, locatie Alkmaar 15-06-2016
2016-398 Rb. Noord-Holland, locatie Alkmaar 06-07-2016
2016-399 Rb. Noord-Holland, locatie Haarlem 17-06-2016
2016-400 Rb. Rotterdam 01-06-2016
2016-401 Rb. Zeeland-West-Brabant, zittingsplaats Breda 11-11-2015
2016-402 Rb. Zeeland-West-Brabant, zittingsplaats Breda 16-03-2016
2016-403 Rb. Zeeland-West-Brabant, zittingsplaats Breda 17-05-2016
2016-404 Gerecht in Eerste Aanleg Aruba 02-02-2016
2016-405 Hof van Justitie EU 18-10-2016
2016-406 Hoge Raad 16-09-2016
2016-407 Hof Den Haag 31-05-2016
2016-408 Rb. Den Haag, zittingsplaats ’s-Gravenhage, kantonrechter 10-05-2016
2016-409 Rb. Midden-Nederland, locatie Utrecht 20-07-2016
2016-410 Rb. Noord-Holland 09-12-2015
2016-411 Vzngr. Rb. Noord-Nederland, locatie Leeuwarden 01-06-2016
2016-412 Rb. Noord-Nederland, locatie Leeuwarden 15-06-2016
2016-413 Vzngr. Rb. Overijssel, zittingsplaats Zwolle 13-05-2016
2016-414 Rb. Rotterdam 18-05-2016
2016-415 Rb. Rotterdam, kantonrechter 20-05-2016
2016-416 Rb. Rotterdam 15-06-2016
2016-417 Vzngr. Rb. Rotterdam 30-06-2016
2016-418 Rb. Rotterdam, kantonrechter 08-07-2016
2016-419 Rb. Rotterdam 20-07-2016
2016-420 Rb. Zeeland-West-Brabant, zittingsplaats Middelburg 08-06-2016
2016-421 Gerecht in Eerste Aanleg Aruba 29-06-2016
2016-422 Hof van Justitie EU 12-10-2016
2016-423 Hof van Justitie EU 26-10-2016
2016-424 Hof van Justitie EU 09-11-2016
2016-425 Hoge Raad 30-09-2016
2016-426 Hoge Raad 14-10-2016
2016-427 Hoge Raad 14-10-2016
2016-428 Hof Amsterdam 20-10-2015
2016-429 Hof Amsterdam 22-12-2015
2016-430 Hof Amsterdam 08-03-2016
2016-431 Hof Amsterdam 29-03-2016
2016-432 Hof Amsterdam 28-06-2016
2016-433 Hof Amsterdam 19-07-2016
2016-434 Hof Den Haag 31-05-2016
2016-435 Hof Den Haag 19-07-2016
2016-436 Hof ’s-Hertogenbosch 07-06-2016
2016-437 Hof ’s-Hertogenbosch 12-07-2016
2016-438 Hof ’s-Hertogenbosch 19-07-2016
2016-439 Rb. Amsterdam, kantonrechter 18-02-2016
2016-440 Rb. Amsterdam 04-05-2016
2016-441 Rb. Amsterdam 25-05-2016
2016-442 Rb. Amsterdam 09-06-2016
2016-443 Rb. Amsterdam 29-06-2016
2016-444 Rb. Amsterdam 20-07-2016
2016-445 Rb. Amsterdam 20-07-2016
2016-446 Rb. Den Haag 04-05-2016
2016-447 Vzngr. Rb. Den Haag 04-05-2016
2016-448 Rb. Den Haag 01-06-2016
2016-449 Vzngr. Rb. Den Haag 01-06-2016
2016-450 Rb. Den Haag 15-06-2016
2016-451 Rb. Den Haag 13-07-2016
2016-452 Rb. Den Haag 20-07-2016
2016-453 Rb. Gelderland, zittingsplaats Arnhem 06-04-2016
2016-454 Rb. Gelderland, zittingsplaats Arnhem 13-04-2016
2016-455 Rb. Gelderland, zittingsplaats Arnhem 04-05-2016
2016-456 Rb. Gelderland, zittingsplaats Arnhem 11-05-2016
2016-457 Rb. Midden-Nederland, locatie Utrecht 06-07-2016
2016-458 Vzngr. Rb. Noord-Holland 10-12-2015
2016-459 Vzngr. Rb. Overijssel, zittingsplaats Almelo 19-05-2016
2016-460 Rb. Rotterdam 25-05-2016
2016-461 Rb. Rotterdam 29-06-2016
2016-462 Rb. Rotterdam 13-07-2016
2016-463 Rb. Rotterdam 20-07-2016
2016-464 Rb. Zeeland-West-Brabant, zittingsplaats Middelburg 27-07-2016
2016-465 Gerecht in Eerste Aanleg Aruba 26-04-2016
Literatuur
2016-466 Bridging the gap: Private international law principles for intellectual property law
2016-467 The territoriality principle in intellectual property revisited
2016-468 Private international law and intellectual property
2016-469 The law applicable to copyright infringement on the Internet
2016-470 The Unified Patent Court and the Brussels I bis Regulation
2016-471 Multiple defendants in intellectual property litigation
