Article 8 obliges Member States to enable the competent judicial authorities to order that the infringer or certain other persons provide precise information on the origin of the infringing goods or services, the distribution channels and the identity of any third parties involved in the infringement. Any order by the competent judicial authorities to provide information issued under Article 8 should only concern information which is actually needed to identify the source and scope of the infringement.
Comments closedCategory: Enforcement
The Court was called upon to tell the national court explicitly whether, under European Union law, a national court is permitted to adopt a measure, ordering an internet service provider to introduce a system for filtering and blocking electronic communications.
Comments closedDigital services, such as video streaming, should be made available to all EU citizens irrespective of the Member State in which they are located; it should to call on the Commission to request that European digital companies remove geographical controls (e.g. IP address blocking) across the Union and allow the purchase of digital services from outside the consumer’s Member State of origin.
Comments closed
Sanoma, the publisher of the monthly magazine Playboy, commissioned a photographer, Mr Hermès, to conduct a photoshoot of Ms Dekker. Ms Dekker appears regularly in television programmes in the Netherlands. The photographer gave Sanoma full power of attorney to represent him for purposes of protection and enforcement of his intellectual property rights arising from the aforementioned commission.
Comments closedWhile Article 14 of IPRED refers to ‘legal costs and other expenses incurred by the successful party’, the Directive does not define what these concepts entail precisely. The CJEU has held that the concept of ‘legal costs’ includes, amongst others, lawyer’s fees. It also held that the concept of ‘other expenses’ includes, in principle, costs incurred for the services of a technical adviser.
Comments closedAccording to indictment Kim Dotcom, Megaupload ltd and other affiliates were members of the “Mega Conspiracy”, a worldwide criminal organization whose members engaged in criminal copyright infringement and money laundering on a massive scale with estimated harm to copyright holders well in excess of $500,000,000 and reported income in excess of $175,000,000.
Comments closed
“Before a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the procedural requirement of service of summons must be satisfied.” In short, a corporation such as Megaupload could not be brought within the jurisdiction of eastern district of Virginia court for criminal proceedings absent its consent.
Comments closed
On 24 June 2004, the Société belge des auteurs compositeurs et éditeurs (SABAM) brought interlocutory proceedings pursuant to the Belgian Law of 30 June 1994 on copyright and related rights before the President of the tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Court of First Instance, Brussels) seeking an injunction against Scarlet Extended SA, an ISP.
Comments closedUnder the current Russian law the access to the web-site can be restricted without court order if the Attorney General or his deputy believes that such web-site disseminates information or content calling to mass disorder, extremist activities, participation in public events, organised in violation of Russian law and if such web-sites is operated by non-governmental organisation, recognised non-grata in Russia.
Comments closedThe IPRED evaluation (de) indicated that rules on reimbursing legal costs differ across the EU and are in some situations insufficient to cover the full costs incurred by the successful party. According to Article 14 of the Directive, the reasonable and proportionate legal costs and other expenses incurred by the successful party are to be borne by the unsuccessful party, unless equity does not allow it. The principle on reimbursing legal costs expressed in Article 14 applies to all types of legal proceedings covered by the Directive, i.e. proceedings on infringement of IPR.
Comments closed