Art. 5(3) – Tech Notes

Posted in Art. 5(3), CJEU, EU, jurisdiction

CJEU Reaffirms: Only Accessibility Matters for the Jurisdiction

This morning the CJEU published its long awaited decision in Pez Hejduk C‑441/13. And now a surprise: it is yet another stubborn confirmation of the Pinckney ruling . Why stubborn? Not because I disagree. But because no matter how many Advocate Generals would say this is a

Posted in Art. 5(3), Court of Justice, jurisdiction

CJEU Confirms Pinckney Ruling

For all the private international law & IP law enthusiast, it might of interest that in the meantime of waiting for Coty Prestige C-360/12 ruling, the CJEU issued its Hi Hotel C-387/12 ruling last week (without an advice from Advocate General). Hi Hotel partially pre-determines the outcome of Coty Prestige with the main message –

Posted in Art. 5(3), CJEU, conflicts of laws, EU, intellectual property, jurisdiction

Is Pinckney Dangerous Law?

I wanted to post this comment since CJEU in October this year handed its perplexing Pinckney C-170/12 ruling. When this Thursday Advocate General Jääskinen published its opinion in Coty Prestige C-360/12, I felt obliged to go back to its confusing language and arguments and point out why Pinckney is a bad law. My regular readers

Posted in Art. 5(3), conflicts of laws, copyright, jurisdiction

CJEU Receives a New Case on Online Copyright Infringement & Jurisdiction

The UK IPO reports a new interesting preliminary reference on cross border jurisdiction in copyright law before the Court of Justice of the EU – Hejduk C-441/13. As Pinckley C-170/12 case is very likely to be rejected by the CJEU due to speculation of referring French court, it is good to know that similar questions