AMS Neve Ltd & Ors v Heritage Audio SL & Anor

AMS Neve Ltd & Ors v Heritage Audio SL & Anor

The Court of Appeal concluded that there is substantial uncertainty as to whether the IPEC has jurisdiction under Article 97(5) where the alleged infringer is domiciled in another Member State but has targeted advertisements and offers for sale at the UK. Given conflicting interpretations in recent CJEU and German case law, the court decided to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the proper interpretation of Article 97(5).

Parties
Appellant/claimant: AMS Neve Limited; Appellant/claimant: Barnett Waddingham Trustees Limited; Appellant/claimant: Mark Crabtree; Respondent/defendant: Heritage Audio S.L.; Respondent/defendant: Pedro Rodriguez Arribas
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Jurisdiction
Outcome
Reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling
Legal Topics
EU Trade Mark Infringement, Jurisdiction, Internet Commerce, Brussels Regulation, Community Trade Mark Regulation
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure EU Trade Mark Infringement Jurisdiction Internet Commerce Brussels Regulation Community Trade Mark Regulation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AMS Neve Limited

Appellant/claimant

Barnett Waddingham Trustees Limited

Appellant/claimant

Mark Crabtree

Appellant/claimant

Heritage Audio S.L.

Respondent/defendant

Pedro Rodriguez Arribas

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) in the UK has jurisdiction under Article 97(5) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation to hear a claim for infringement of an EU trade mark where the alleged infringer is domiciled in another Member State but has advertised and offered for sale goods in the UK via a website targeted at the UK.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal concluded that there is substantial uncertainty as to whether the IPEC has jurisdiction under Article 97(5) where the alleged infringer is domiciled in another Member State but has targeted advertisements and offers for sale at the UK. Given conflicting interpretations in recent CJEU and German case law, the court decided to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the proper interpretation of Article 97(5).

Court Disposition

Reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling

Orders

  • Questions referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 97(5) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation.