Claim for infringement of a national trademark and the counterclaim for the invalidation of the EU trademark MULTISELECT. Procedural law applicable to similar legal actions concerning a national trademark. Principle of procedural autonomy. A Counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity of an EU trade mark may relate to...

Visibility of a design (underside of a saddle) which constitutes a component part of a complex product (bicycle) during normal of use of that complex product (article 3 Design-directive). The requirement of ‘visibility’ must be assessed in the light of a situation of normal use of that complex product, so that the...

Design law The assessment as to whether the features of appearance of a product are dictated solely by its technical function, within the meaning of that provision, must be made having regard to all of the objective circumstances relevant to each case, inter alia (i) those dictating the choice of features of appearance...

If a Member State complies with the obligation under Article 61 of the TRIPS Agreement to criminalise intentional trade mark or copyright infringement, that Member State is implementing European Union law so that the Charter applies (Article 51 Charter). The principle of legalisation of offences and penalties (Article...

Recurring penalty payments not subject to enforcement requirements under national law nor notification by the claimant (Article 82(4) UPCA, Rule 118(8) RoP, Rule 354 RoP). Dual purpose penalty payment.

Workflows.  According to Rule 4.2 RoP, the parties are required to use official forms provided online, including the various workflows, such as, for instance, for the main proceedings, for Rule 262 RoP or Rule 262A RoP. Within these workflows, no further applications are to be submitted that are assigned to other...

The start of the time limit of two months for responding to the Statement of Defence which includes a Counterclaim for revocation (Rule 29a RoP) is to be set on the date of the conclusion of the R. 262A proceedings, i.e. 8 November 2023. Opposing party to be heard on synchronizing time limit for replying to the nullity...

Ordered before the conclusion of the written procedure (i) to hear both the infringement action and the counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity and

(ii) to request the President of the Court of First Instance to assign a technically qualified judge (article 33(3)(a) UPCA, Rule 37 RoP).

Revocation action currently not stayed because of "rapid decision expected from the EPO", but continued at least until the interim conference which is to be held on 14 March 2024 (article 33(10) UPCA, Rule 295(a) RoP)).

Inter parties and public acces restricted to confidential commercial information (Rule 262A RoP & Rule 262 RoP). Unrestricted access not necessary to understand Claimant’s legal position.

Article 32(a) UPCA confers jurisdiction on the UPC to determine damages only after a prior action for patent infringement has been brought before a chamber of the UPC.

Suspensive effect for an appeal of an order on access to documents under R. 262.1(b) RoP, an order which would otherwise have been enforceable soon, to ensure that there is time to adjudicate the appeal on the merits.

Action pending before the Munich Local Division is not between the same parties. Meril India and Meril Germany are not the "same party" as Meril Italy. (article 33(4)UPCA, Rule 20 RoP)

Pursuant to Rule 322 RoP the Judge-Rapporteur may, of his own motion or at the request of a party, at any time during the written and interlocutory proceedings, after consultation with the panel, propose to the parties that the language of the proceedings be changed to the language in which the patent was granted in...

Preliminary objection against competence of Central Division in revocation action rejected because revocation action was already brought before the Central Division (article 33(4) UPCA). Statement of Revocation in revocation action was lodged in hard-copy on 1 June 2023 at 11.26, prior to the Statement of Claim in the...

By its very nature, the earliest point at which such an assessment could be made is after the filing of the statement of defence.

Specific considerations concerning the required urgency, reasons for granting an order ex parte because it concerns digital data, ordering confidentiality and the granting of security at 2,5% of the case value

Confidentiality order and restriction of access (Rule 262A RoP, Article  58 UPCA). Prima facie evidence of trade secrets. The existence of a trade secret does not have to be established to the court's satisfaction, but it is sufficient if this is predominantly probable. 

Extension of time to file Statement of Defense with the period of time that the plaintiffs allowed to elapse with the subsequent submission of the annexes.

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Administrative Panel Decision.  Moooi B.V. opposes the domain names <moooifurniture.shop> and <moooisale.com> . According to Moooi, the domain names are confusingly similar to the trademarks MOOOI while the defendants have no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names...