首页> 外文期刊>IIC:International review of intellectual property and competition law >Putting Right Holders in the Centre: Bolagsupplysningen and Ilsjan (C-194/16) What Does It Mean for International Jurisdiction over Transborder Intellectual Property Infringement Disputes?
【24h】

Putting Right Holders in the Centre: Bolagsupplysningen and Ilsjan (C-194/16) What Does It Mean for International Jurisdiction over Transborder Intellectual Property Infringement Disputes?

机译:将权利人置于中心:Bolagsupplysningen和Ilsjan(C-194 / 16)对于跨界知识产权侵权纠纷的国际管辖权意味着什么?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

This paper analyses what the decision in Bolagsupplysningen and Ilsjan (C-194/16) means for international jurisdiction under EU Regulation No 1215/2012 with respect to transborder intellectual property infringement disputes. In this case, the Court of Justice of the European Union extended “the centre of interests” basis of jurisdiction under Art. 7(2) of EU Regulation No 1215/2012 to legal persons claiming infringements of personality rights on the internet. The Court also held that actions for rectification and removal of content infringing personality rights may not be brought before the courts of a Member State where the content is accessible. This article concludes that the centre of interests basis of jurisdiction is generally not applicable to right holders claiming infringements of intellectual property rights and/or complementary tort claims, except arguably for claims for the infringement of moral rights and unfair competition claims where the act exclusively affects the interests of a specific competitor. Many questions remain with respect to the localisation of a victim’s centre of interests. In addition, the article concludes that the judgment in Bolagsupplysningen does not affect a right holder’s ability to obtain an injunction in the Member State in which content accessible on the internet infringes a forum IP right to put an end to the infringement in that State. Still, the centre of interests basis of jurisdiction has the potential to give right holders an advantage for claims of online infringements of moral rights and acts of unfair competition that exclusively affect them and it can be expected that authors and traders will take advantage of this opportunity when considering their IP litigation strategies.
机译:本文分析了Bolagsupplysningen和Ilsjan(C-194 / 16)中的裁决对欧盟法规1215/2012中有关跨界知识产权侵权纠纷的国际管辖权的含义。在这种情况下,欧洲联盟法院扩大了根据《商标保护法》享有的“利益中心”管辖权基础。欧盟第1215/2012号法规第7(2)条,针对声称在互联网上侵犯人格权的法人。法院还认为,纠正和删除侵犯人格权的内容的诉讼可能不会在可访问该内容的成员国的法院提出。本文的结论是,管辖权的利益中心通常不适用于主张侵犯知识产权和/或补充侵权诉讼的权利持有人,除非可以争辩侵犯精神权利的诉讼和不正当竞争诉讼,而该行为仅影响知识产权。特定竞争对手的利益。关于受害者利益中心的本地化,还有许多问题。此外,文章的结论是,Bolagsupplysningen案的判决不影响权利人在成员国中获得禁止令的能力,在该禁令中,互联网上可访问的内容侵犯了论坛的知识产权,以制止该国的侵权行为。尽管如此,管辖权的利益中心基础仍有可能为权利人提供在线侵犯精神权利和不正当竞争行为的主张,这些权利会独家影响他们,并且可以预期,作者和交易者将利用这一机会在考虑他们的知识产权诉讼策略时。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号