Wednesday 20 July 2022

IP Dispute Resolution before the Netherlands Commercial Court

Amsterdam
Author Ank Kumar  Licence CC BY-SA 4.0   Source Wikimedia

 










Jane Lambert

The Netherlands Commercial Court is a chamber of the Amsterdam District Court which conducts proceedings and delivers judgments in English,  I discussed its formation in The Netherlands Commercial Court - an English Speaking Court in Amsterdam on 2 Aug 2020.

The Court publishes a bimonthly newsletter called NCC News Update.  A recent issue announced that several judges specializing in intellectual property law had joined the Court.  According to the fact sheet NCC and Intellectual Propertythose judges are:

  • Judge Diekman (Rotterdam District Court) 
  • Judge Van Heemstra (Gelderland District Court) 
  • Judge Loos (The Hague District Court) 
  • Judge Hofmeijer-Rutten (Rotterdam District Court and Amsterdam Court of Appeal) 
  • Judge Tjong Tjin Tai (sitting by designation) (Professor of Private Law at Tilburg University, specializing in IP and IT law), and
  • Judge Bernt Hugenholtz (sitting by designation) (Professor of IP Law at the University of Amsterdam).
The NCC cannot try patent infringement or validity claims because these are reserved for the Hague District Court as are plant variety and EU trade mark and Community design cases but it can hear everything else including licensing and other disputes arising relating to patents, plant varieties and EU trade mark and Community designs.   Its jurisdiction therefore covers copyright, Benelux trade marks and designs, rights in performances, trade secrets and unfair competition cases.   

This court could be a serious competitor to London in that costs are lower and its judgments can be enforced throughout Europe under the Brussels Recast Regulation (see NCC and other European commercial courts.   English lawyers lost their rights of audience when the UK left the European Union but judges will allow them occasionally to make written or oral submissions  (see FAQ  "Can a foreign lawyer speak in court").

Anyone wishing to discuss this article may call me during normal UK office hours on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 or send me a message through my contact page.

Tuesday 5 July 2022

IPO's Guidance on Australia

Australian Swagman
Unknown author - NSW GovtPrinter,
Public Domain,
























On 28 June 2022, the UK Intellectual Property Office published a new intellectual property guide to Australia.  This one-page guide contains information on the following topics:
The guide does not mention the phasing out of utility models known as "innovation patents" which once attracted considerable interest from inventors and their advisors in the UK.  Nor does it mention plant breeders' rights which are important to a major food and wine producing nation.  

The reason for the publication is that Her Majesty's Government has recently negotiated a free trade agreement with the government of Australia.  There are already strong ties between the two countries. The IPO's press release states that there are a million UK citizens in Australia and that the UK's trade with that country was just under £10 billion in 2021.  When the free trade agreement comes into force, the IPO expects more opportunities for British companies in digital and services as well as luxury and other high-value goods.

I outlined the free trade agreement in The Free Trade Agreement with Australia on 20 Dec 2021.  I discussed the IP provisions of the agreement in Intellectual Property Articles of the Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement: General Provisions on 3 Jan 2022.   Readers will find links to all the resources that I have collected on Australia on my "Australia" page.

Anyone wishing to discuss this article or any of the topics mentioned in it may call me on +44 (0)20 7404 5252 during office hours or send me a message through my contact form.

Service of Process in Germany After Brexit - Seraphine Ltd v Mamarella GmbH

Standard YouTube Licence Jane Lambert Intellectual Property Enterprise Court  (Michael Tappin KC)  Seraphine Ltd v Mamarella GmbH  [202...