[Editor's note] Incorporated in Luxembourg Brite Strike Technologies SA (Hereinafter referred to as "LU Brite" ) company, It's the United States Brite Strike Technologies Inc. (Hereinafter referred to as "US Brite" ) Company dealer, Distribution of military lighting equipment. LU Brite In one's own name, Apply to the Benelux Intellectual Property Office for the registration of the trademark "Brite Strike" (Hereinafter referred to as "Trademark involved" ) . 2012 years 9 month, US Brite To the District Court in The Hague, Request the invalidation of the trademark involved on the grounds of malicious trademark registration. The defendant challenged jurisdiction, That the Luxembourg court should hear the case. What do you know about the results!

[background] Incorporated in Luxembourg Brite Strike Technologies SA (Hereinafter referred to as "LU Brite" ) company, It's the United States Brite Strike Technologies Inc. (Hereinafter referred to as "US Brite" ) Company dealer, Distribution of military lighting equipment. LU Brite In one's own name, Apply to the Benelux Intellectual Property Office for the registration of the trademark "Brite Strike" (Hereinafter referred to as "Trademark involved" ) . 2012 years 9 month, US Brite To the District Court in The Hague, Request the invalidation of the trademark involved on the grounds of malicious trademark registration. The defendant challenged jurisdiction, That the Luxembourg court should hear the case. To resolve jurisdictional issues, The District Court in The Hague said yes "Regulation of the European Union on Jurisdiction and Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in civil and commercial proceedings (The first 44/2001 No) " (namely "Brussels regulation I" ) The first 71 Articles and regulations 22 article 4 To interpret the provisions of the paragraph, To confirm "Benelux Intellectual Property (Trademark and design) convention" (Hereinafter referred to as "BCIP convention" ) Priority or not "Brussels regulation I" Applicable to the case. In short, if "BCIP convention" Priority case, Then the Luxembourg court has jurisdiction; otherwise, The Hague court has jurisdiction over the case. "Brussels regulation I" The first 71 Article provision: This Regulation does not affect the participation of member States, Relevant jurisdiction, An international treaty that recognizes or enforces special provisions such as judgments. The first question the Hague District court asked the EU court to rule on was, "BCIP convention" Is it later than "Brussels regulation I" Come into effect, And that tells us "BCIP convention" The first 4. 6 Bar not "Brussels regulation I" The first 71 As stipulated in the article "Special clause" ? If the Court of Justice of the European Union decides that this case does not apply "BCIP convention" , So the second question that needs to be decided by the European Court of Justice is, Should be in accordance with "Brussels regulation I" The first 22 article 4 Provision of paragraph, Think Belgium, The courts of the Netherlands and Luxembourg both have jurisdiction over the case? If not all three courts have jurisdiction, So the third issue that needs to be decided by the European Court of Justice is this, Something like this, Can be reused "BCIP convention" The first 4. 6 Article to determine which of the three courts has jurisdiction over the case? [discover] The Court of Justice of the European Union answered the first question, First clarify "Brussels regulation I" The first 71 Understanding of bar: 1) The first 71 As stated in the article "International convention" , Not limited to conventions to which all member States are parties, Or a convention that requires the participation of a third state other than a member State. (namely, A convention established only among certain member states, Also belong to the 71 The scope of the article specification. ) 2) There is no violation in this case "New rules are prohibited" request, because "BCIP convention" The first 4. 6 The article was fully adopted 1971 years "Benelux Uniform trademark Law" Related content of. 3) alignment 71 Interpretation of article, Should follow "European Union operation Treaty" The first 350 Provision of article, So as long as Belgium, The purpose of the regional union of Luxembourg and the Netherlands has not been adopted "The European Union operates the Convention" Complete inclusion, Eu law cannot prohibit the survival of the union. This case has two features: The Benelux Union operates a system of regional trademarks governed by uniform rules, The priority of this system is higher than that of the respective domestic market of the alliance; and, In view of Benelux's loose and multilingual system and other characteristics, Compared with "Brussels regulation I" The first 22 article 4 subparagraph "The jurisdiction of the Dutch courts alone" , "BCIP convention" The first 4. 6 prescribed "By Belgium, Jurisdiction of the courts of Luxembourg or the Netherlands" It is more conducive to the normal operation of the trademark and appearance design system of the alliance. Therefore, "BCIP convention" The first 4. 6 Article should take precedence "Brussels regulation I" The first 22 article 4 Paragraph, shall apply in this case. In view of the conclusion of the first question, priority is applied "BCIP convention" The first 4. 6 article, The court therefore found no need to answer the other two questions.

[comment] The European Court of Justice tried to use the case, Draw the line on how EU law and international conventions apply norms in the same area. In my opinion, The Court of Justice of the European Union held that " "Brussels regulation I" The first 22 article 4 Sum of funds "BCIP" The first 4. 6 Bar matching 'International jurisdiction of the Benelux Trademark Invalidation Dispute' The question is applicable" There was an impropriety in the decision. For the Benelux Union, "BCIP" The first 4. 6 The contents stipulated in the article are relevant "Territorial jurisdiction (territorial jurisdiction) " problem, Rather than "International jurisdiction (international jurisdiction) " problem. Therefore, For this case, Should be based first on "Brussels regulation I" Stipulation of, Identify Belgium, The courts of Luxembourg and the Netherlands have exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute. then, In accordance with "BCIP" The first 4. 6 article, Determine which court has specific jurisdiction. logically, "BCIP" The first 4. 6 The article does not relate to the place of registration of the trademark. "Brussels regulation I" Chapter two, section six, Exclusive jurisdiction, stipulation: "The first 22 No matter where they live, The following courts have exclusive jurisdiction: ... The first 4 Money related to patent, trademark, Legal procedures for registration or validity of design or other similar rights, Courts of member states that have applied or have applied for registration, Or a court of a Member State which is considered to be registered in accordance with EU regulations or international conventions. ... " "BCIP" The first 4. 6 article, Territorial jurisdiction, stipulation: "1. Except as expressly provided in the contract, Any dispute concerning a trademark or design shall be at the place where the defendant is located, The court shall have jurisdiction in the place where the obligations in dispute or the affairs in dispute occur. The place of registration of a trademark or design shall not be the sole condition for determining territorial jurisdiction. 2. If pursuant to paragraph 1, Where jurisdiction cannot still be determined, The litigant may bring a lawsuit in the court of his place of residence or place of business. Where the place of residence or place of business of the litigant is outside the territory of Benelux, You can choose Brussels, A court in The Hague or Luxembourg. 3. The Court shall apply the rules referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 ex officio, And clearly affirm its jurisdiction. ... "

compile: Li Fangqian, Esaberi intern proofread: Liu Dan, The source of Aisabri Legal Counsel: Esabaril (ELZABURU) Intellectual property rights