Editor's note: NEW WAVE, CZ, a. s. (Hereinafter referred to as "NEW WAVE" ) Sue ALLTOYS, spol. s. r. o. (Hereinafter referred to as "ALLTOYS" ) Without permission, On the goods they sell "MegaBabe" trademark, infringe NEW WAVE Trademark right. The admissible court of the member state shall determine in its final judgment ALLTOYS infringement, It is required to stop the infringement and withdraw the infringing goods that have been put on the market. but, The court rejected NEW WAVE A claim added to a suit——The defendant is required to provide detailed information about the infringing goods. Read on for the future!

[background] NEW WAVE, CZ, a. s. (Hereinafter referred to as "NEW WAVE" ) Sue ALLTOYS, spol. s. r. o. (Hereinafter referred to as "ALLTOYS" ) Without permission, On the goods they sell "MegaBabe" trademark, infringe NEW WAVE Trademark right. The admissible court of the member state shall determine in its final judgment, ALLTOYS infringe NEW WAVE Opposite mark "MegaBabe" Right to enjoy, requirement ALLTOYS Stop infringing acts and withdraw infringing goods that have been placed on the market. but, The court rejected NEW WAVE A claim added to a suit——The defendant is required to provide detailed information about the infringing goods. After the final judgment, NEW WAVE File a new lawsuit, requirement ALLTOYS Provide storage by it, Sales and import attached "MegaBabe" The full source and distribution network information of the trademarked goods. The Prague City Court rejected it NEW WAVE Sue, Hold the ground "Czechodyne 221/2006 Number law" stipulation, Right of information (a right of information) Protection can only be sought in infringement proceedings, You can't bring a right to information suit alone. NEW WAVE Disobedience to court order, An appeal was filed with the Prague Appeals Court. The court of appeal overturned the original court decision, judgment ALLTOYS to NEW WAVE Provide the requested information. The court found that "Czechodyne 221/2006 Number law" The first 3 The interpretation of the article should be referred to "Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on enforcement of intellectual property rights (The first 2004/48/EC No) " (Hereinafter referred to as "European Union regulation 2004/48/EC Number instruction" ) The first 8 (1) Provision of article, Proceedings for information that has not been voluntarily provided also fall into the category of infringement proceedings. ALLTOYS Appeal to the Supreme Court, Argue that since "Czechodyne 221/2006 Number law" Convert from "European Union regulation 2004/48/EC Number instruction" Stipulation of, Then it should be in "European Union regulation 2004/48/EC Number instruction" The semantic provisions of the interpretation of the relevant norms. The Supreme Court took note "European Union regulation 2004/48/EC Number instruction" There are differences between different language translations, Increased understanding of the first 8 (1) Article about the difficulty of the information right provisions. In view of this, The Supreme Court decided to stay the case, And request the European Court of Justice to make a preliminary ruling on the following issues: " "European Union regulation 2004/48/EC Number instruction" The first 8 (1) Article should be read as, When an intellectual property infringement proceeding has been concluded and the infringement is finally established, The applicant filed a separate action, Requests for information on the origin and distribution network of the goods or services alleged to have infringed (For example, For the purpose of accurately calculating the amount of loss and filing compensation) , Then this individual lawsuit is also an intellectual property infringement lawsuit? "

[conclusion] Before making a preliminary determination, European Court of Justice (Court of Justice) First point out, According to previous cases of the court, When interpreting specific EU laws, Not only on the basis of the text of the article, The legislative purpose of the law containing the provision should also be considered (2016 years 3 month 17 day, Liffers case, C-99/15) . The European Court of Justice held that, "In litigation involving infringement of intellectual property rights" This expression, It should not be understood to consist solely of actions for the purpose of establishing the existence of intellectual property infringement, A subsequent proceeding based separately on the proceeding that finalizes the infringement of intellectual property rights, It should be included. The European Court of Justice also stressed, Not only can you Sue for information from the principal infringer, It can also Sue for information from a third party who did not participate in the main proceedings. In addition, The European Court of Justice held that, This explanation also fits "European Union regulation 2004/48/EC Number instruction" The tenth paragraph of the preface describes the legislative purpose, That is, to coordinate the legislative norms of intellectual property enforcement in member states, Ensure that the internal market remains at a high level, Homogeneous protection (2015 years 7 month 16 day, Diageo Brands case, C-681/13) . Finally, The European Court of Justice held that "European Union regulation 2004/48/EC Number instruction" prescribed "Right of information" Is a fundamental right to effective remedy, The intellectual property right holder shall be allowed to identify the infringer and take appropriate measures. Because you don't have all the information about the infringement, The right holder cannot accurately judge or calculate the amount of damages he is entitled to due to the infringement.

[comment] The European Court of Justice was right to conclude that the right to information could be litigated separately from the main intellectual property infringement proceedings, Only in this way can we ensure that the infringed intellectual property rights holders can obtain the necessary information for effective relief.

compile: Liu Dan, Esabarry Legal Counsel source: Esabaril (ELZABURU)