Editor's note: Kokido Limited The company has several EU trademarks and community designs, Relates to several swimming pool cleaning brush products. Kokido Services, S. L. The company is Kokido Limited Company dealer, Sue Coamer, S. L. company (Hereinafter referred to as Coamer) and Leroy Merlin España, S. L. U. corporate-run "Aluminum alloy cleaner" and "Automatic cleaner" Infringed on its exclusive license. Read on for the verdict!

[background] Kokido Limited The company has several EU trademarks and community designs, Relates to several swimming pool cleaning brush products (figure 1) . Kokido Services, S. L. company (Hereinafter referred to as KS) is Kokido Limited Company dealer, Sue Coamer, S. L. company (Hereinafter referred to as Coamer) and Leroy Merlin España, S. L. U. company (Hereinafter referred to as Leroy España) operational "Aluminum alloy cleaner" and "Automatic cleaner" Infringed on its exclusive license. figure 1 At first instance, The EU Court of Trade Marks and Appearance dismissed the case, The reason is not laid down in the law 5 Civil action within the statute of limitations. The plaintiff is against the judgment, Lodge an appeal, Think that "Beyond the statute of limitations for which the infringement can be prosecuted" Error of judgment. The plaintiff argues that it has been 2008 years 10 month 3 diurnal "Cease and desist infringement notice letters (the first cease and desist letters) " , concurrence 2014 years 3 month 21 The infringement lawsuit was filed in Japan. Therefore, The controversy is not about 5 Whether the statute of limitations period expires, It's whether there is one "Spanish civil code" The first 1973 The legal fact that causes the limitation of action to be interrupted.

[discover] First of all, appellant (Plaintiff of first instance) Filed before the indictment (namely 2014 years 3 month 21 Before the sun) , It has filed a separate challenge to the Madrid Commercial Court on the same grounds Coamer (2009 years 7 month 17 day) and LeroyEspaña (2012 years 2 month 15 day) Initiate a lawsuit. however, The Court of Appeal confirmed, The Madrid Commercial Court ruled that both cases fell under the jurisdiction of the EU Trademark Court in Alicante, Not the Madrid Commercial Court, So both charges have been dismissed. accordingly, Appellate decision, The above two prosecutions do not have the effect of interrupting the limitation of action. secondly, The appellant contends that in "Cease and desist infringement notice letters" About a year after it was sent, Immediately before 2009 years, Leroy Merlin Companies set up in Portugal are still selling infringing goods. The appeals court also rejected the claim, Holds that the aforesaid infringing goods cannot be used as defendants Coamer or Leroy España Basis of infringement, Because the infringing goods are not made by Leroy España For sale. Finally, The appellant argues that he was 2011 years 12 month 22 heliotropic Leroy España Send a fax, As a result, the statute of limitations period was interrupted. That defence was also rejected by the appeals court. Judgment point, Strictly speaking, The act of sending a fax is not an out-of-court claim (out-of-court claim) In one way. The reasons are as follows: first, Since the "Cease and desist infringement notice letters" Send out 3 Since last year (2008. 10. 03-2011. 12. 22) , The appellant is not correct Leroy España Take any measures against the infringement, During the period only 2009 years 7 month 17 Japanese pair Coamer Initiate a lawsuit; second, know Coamer post-bankruptcy, The appellant knows that even if he wins, he cannot claim Coamer Bear full liability for compensation, That's why it's right Leroy España Send the above fax; third, The appellant did not send the fax for the purpose of claiming damages out of court, namely "Protect rights from infringement" , They expect the defendant "On grounds of immunity from prosecution, (appellant) Establish business ties" . For the above reasons, The Court of Appeal dismissed and upheld the appellant's appeal "Termination of statute of limitations" judgment.

[comment] "Spanish civil code" The first 1973 The circumstances under which the statute of limitations for civil action is interrupted include: The act of the obligee suing or filing a claim out of court. However, the clause itself does not specify what circumstances fall under "Claim out of court" behavior. contrary, The clause seems to require only that the obligee must clearly and unequivocally indicate to a third party his intention to confront that third party, Regardless of whether the intention is actually carried out, Nor does it claim that the purpose of the statement is to prohibit a particular act by a third person, Or to use the rights acquired by registration to establish a specific business relationship with a third party. In spite of this, This judgment reminds the right holder to pay attention to the problem of limitation of action.

author: Joaquín ROVIRA, Compiled by lawyer Elsabry: Li Fangqian, Esaberi intern proofread: Liu Dan, The source of Aisabri Legal Counsel: Esabaril (ELZABURU) Intellectual property rights