UPC CFI, LD Paris, 27 November 2025: Jurisdiction UPC because Statement of claim alleges that website is accessible within France

24-03-2026 Print this page
Editor:
Dick van Engelen
IPPT20251127, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Keeex v Adobe

Preliminary objections dismissed (R. 20 RoP). 

 

Request to set aside a Statement of findings (procès-verbal de constat) and subsequent expert report not granted (R. 334(g) RoP). Reference to French national law to challenge the probative value not relevant as the UPC is governed by specific rules of evidence (Article 53 UPCA, R. 170 RoP - R. 189 RoP). 

 

Statement of Claim alleges that website is accessible within French territory (Article 7(2) BR) it is not necessary to demonstrate that the website in question is specifically aimed at the French public; the sole criterion that the website is accessible within French territory is sufficient to establish an infringement of a digital product or digital service offered online. 

 

Jurisdiction of UPC under Article 7 BR also extents to third country territories (namely Switzerland, Spain, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway and Poland), based on the BSH decision: applies regardless of whether the basis for jurisdiction is established under Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation (domicile of one of the defendants) or on Article 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation (place where the harmful event occurred), contrary to what is claimed by the defendants.

 

IPPT20251127, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Keeex v Adobe