UPC CFI Nordic-Baltic, 29 October 2024: Parallel jurisdiction during the transitional period also includes actions for a declaration of non-infringement.

07-12-2024 Print this page
Editor:
Mzolisi Mtshaulana
IPPT20241029, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Texport v Sioen

Preliminary objection dismissed (R. 19 RoP). 

 

Parallel jurisdiction during the transitional period also includes actions for a declaration of non-infringement, although such actions are not explicitly mentioned in Article 83.1 UPCA. An action for a declaration of non-infringement is, after all, the mirror of an action for infringement (cf. e.g. ECJ, 6 December 1994, C-406/92, ECLI:EU:C:1994:400, Tatry). 

 

The Court finds that there are not sufficient reasons for staying the UPC infringement proceedings because of Belgian proceedings for a declaration of non-infringement and fot revocation (Article 30 Brussels I recast). The fact that a final decision by the UPC may include remedies also covering Belgium does not lead to a different conclusion.

 

IPPT20241029, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Texport v Sioen