Tag: Article 8(1)

Posted on

Beverage City v Advance Magazine. The CJEU adopts flexible approach to anchor defendant mechanism in Trademark cases.

I have been absolutely swamped in recent months and as a result, the blog has suffered. In coming up for some air, I decided to first tackle some of the oldest drafts in my blog queue. First up is CJEU C-832/21 Beverage City & Lifestyle GmbH et al v Advance Magazine Publishers Inc held let’s say a little while ago (September 2023; did I flag I have been busy?) which in essence clarifies CJEU Nintendo.

The EU Trademark Regulation 2017/1001 has lex specialis conflict of laws provisions viz Brussels Ia. However it does not specify an anchor mechanism and therefore [26] Article 8(1) Brussels Ia  applies in full.

I discussed Richard de la Tour AG’s Opinion here. As I summarised when I tweeted the judgment, the CJEU has essentially followed the AG’s suggestion of a flexible interpretation of the A8(1) conditions:

with respect to the the A8(1) (compare CJEU The Tatry) condition relating to the existence of the “same situation of law”, this [31] “appears to be satisfied” (final check is for the national court) where the claim concerns the protection of claimant’s exclusive right over EU trade marks, which is based on EU trademark law identical to all EU Member States. [29] Any difference in the legal bases under national law of claims relating to that protection is irrelevant to the assessment of the risk of conflicting decisions.

further, with respect to the condition of “same situation of fact”,  [37]

“the existence of a connection between the claims concerned relates primarily to the relationship between all the acts of infringement committed rather than to the organisational or capital connections between the companies concerned. Similarly, in order to establish the existence of the same situation of fact, particular attention should also be paid to the nature of the contractual relationship between the customer and the supplier.”

[38] Anchor defendant Beverage City & Lifestyle was connected to Beverage City Polska by an agreement for the exclusive distribution of the energy drink ‘Diamant Vogue’ in Germany.

“That exclusive contractual relationship between those two companies may make it more foreseeable that the acts of infringement of which they are accused may be regarded as concerning the same situation of fact, capable of resulting in a single court having jurisdiction to rule on the claims brought against all of the actors who committed those acts.”

The CJEU throughout the judgment emphasises the sound administration of justice objective supporting the joinder mechanism.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2023, 2.505 ff, 2.518.

Posted on

Are The Netherlands reneging on third party litigation funding? Stichting Investor Loss Compensation and Airbus Investor Recovery Stichting v Airbus. First instance court Den Haag puts big question mark next to third party funded collective (investor) claims.

The first instance court at Den Haag has held in joined cases Stichting Investor Loss Compensation and Airbus Investor Recovery Stichting v Airbus ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023 [‘SILC’ and ‘AIRS’ v Airbus] dismissing both claims (introduced under the Dutch collective action aka class action ‘WAMCA’ procedure) as inadmissible. The case is an echo of Airbus Investors Recovery Limited v Airbus (‘AIR’ v Airbus), where the first instance  court at Amsterdam in a claim that is not a WAMCA claim, held (as I report here unconvincingly) on applicable  law under Rome II.

Current case first of all is of interest for the relative ease with which the court accepts jurisdiction. The claim against Airbus SE incorporated at Leiden obviously meets the Article 4 Brussels Ia domicile gateway. Against the  other EU-based defendants, jurisdiction on the basis of Article 25 of the Brussels Ia Regulation (choice of court) was justifiably dismissed. The court held [5.6] that unilateral statements on directors’ professional address in Airbus’ annual reports hardly constitute choice of court.

Jurisdiction was however upheld on the basis of the anchor defendant mechanism: [5.11] ff on the basis of A8(1) BIa against the EU-domiciled members of Airbus’ Board and [5.23] ff on the basis of the Dutch residual CPR rules against the non-EU-domiciled members of the Board, seeing as the claim reproaches Airbus, the anchor defendant, of not timely having communicated let alone acted viz bribery within the corporation, and the Board’s direct responsibility for such communication. For that reason (and with an important flag here viz future claim formulation) it dismisses [5.14] ff jurisdiction on the basis of A8(1) against the CFOs who were not a member of the Board: claims against them are not related to the A4 claim v Airbus. These two CFOs also escape jurisdiction on the basis of A7(2) forum delicti with reference to CJEU Ofab: they are not directors of the NL-based defendant and their activities (and alleged omissions) were not supposed to take place in NL.

The remainder of the judgment then discusses various issues of the Dutch collective action regime on which others will know a lot more. It includes interesting discussion of the transition between the old WCAM and the new WAMCA.  The claim of AIRS is held [5.85] to be inadmissible on grounds of the Stichting not being representative.

SILC’s claim is held [5.108] ff to be inadmissible on grounds related to (real or perceived) warnings in WAMCA’s travaux against too much undue influence of third party litigation funders and the presence in SILC’s board of, and alleged  risk of SILC dependency on, DRRT (a Bahama-based law firm specialising in mass torts) and Therium, a third party litigation funder.

This part of the judgment (one assumes appeal) no doubt will be read with interest by funders generally.

Geert.

 

Posted on

Athenian Brewery and Heineken v Macedonian Thrace Brewery. Interesting incoming CJEU reference on mother corporation’s imputability viz daughter’s competition law infringement, in the context of anchor jurisdiction for follow-on damages.

Update 26 06 2023 The Dutch SC questions referred to the CJEU are now here 

In Athenian Brewery and Heineken v Macedonian Thrace Brewery ECLI:NL:HR:2023:660, the Dutch Supreme Court is likely to refer to the CJEU on the approach to ‘relatedness’ in competition law cases, required to substantiate anchor jurisdiction. It is the Greek authorities that have held that  Heineken’s Greek daughter, in which it held close to 99% of shares, had infringed competition law.

Competition law works with an assumption of attributability of daughter undertakings’ infringements to their mother corporation: see CJEU ENI and recently C-377/20 SEN /AGCM. The SC now should like to ask the CJEU how that assumption relates to Article 8(1) Brussels Ia’s anchor defendant mechanism, which requires claims to be ‘closely related’, whether the case needs to be distinguished from CJEU CDC seeing as it is the Greek, not the EU competition authorities which held the infringement, and what impact the issue has on the assessment required per CJEU Universal Music and Kolassa.

An impending reference of note.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.13.1.

Posted on

Stichting Claim Gran Petro. Dutch court holds that use of the anchor mechanism merely to avoid tardy Brasilian proceedings in follow-on damages claim, constitutes abuse of process.

Regular readers will be aware that disciplining the use of the anchor defendant mechanism is not an easy task for a court to undertake (I have linked to one post yet the search tag ‘anchor’ will take you to plenty). The CJEU takes a restrictive view. Although in the case at issue Article 8(1) Brussels Ia does not formally apply (the mechanism does not apply to defendants domiciled outside the EU), instruction in Dutch residual rules is that they be applied as A8(1) would.

In Stichting Claim Gran Petro v Shell Netherlands, Shell Brasil and Raizen ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:7099, the Hague court of first instance did though refuse jurisdiction against the one Brazilian defendant (Raisen), anchored unto two Dutch Shell entities (Shell now having moved domicile exclusively to England was held [5.2] not to have relevance on account of the perpetuatio fori principle), citing abuse of the anchor defendant mechanism.

Shell have a majority share in Raisen. The claimants in essence called upon the corporate structure of Shell and, pro inspiratio, hoped to convince the court that the presumption of involvement of mother corporations in their daughter’s anti-competitive shenanigans might be enough to justify the relatedness of the claims. Such assumption exists in EU competition law (see eg CJEU ENI) however the court finds that claimants have not been able to prove a Brazilian equivalent.

The court refers ia to CJEU CDC v Azo Nobel et al to emphasize the condition that the anchor mechanism must not be intended merely to remove the defendant at issue from its natural domicile forum. [6.7] the court reports that the claimants acknowledge that Dutch jurisdiction is sought for reasons of  general tardiness of Brazilian proceedings. There is no suggestion that Raizen will not be willing to meet any future damages. Seeing as no presumption under Brazilian law of mother corporation involvement exists, and seeing as no proof of factual involvement of the Shell mother entities was furnished, [6.16] the court concludes that the anchor mechanism at issue is an abusive application and must not lead to jurisdiction.

Geert.

Posted on

Richard de La Tour AG on trademarks and anchor jurisdiction in Beverage City & Lifestyle.

I am on a break with the family until after Easter, hence only slowly treating myself to writing up blog posts. There are one or two in the queue, and I hope to be clearing them before long. ]

In C‑832/21 Beverage City & Lifestyle GmbH v Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. Richard de la Tour AG Opined a few weeks back. The claim is for trademark infringement between a US domiciled holder of an EU Trademark, and its EU suppliers in Poland and Germany. The AG suggest Article 8(1)’s joinder mechanism may apply in the case, provided the claimant in limine litis (at the start of proceedings) prove the anchor defendant’s role in the chain of infringements.

Background is the Union Trademark Regulation 2017/1001, which has separate rules on jurisdiction discussed in ia AMS Neve, however it leaves A8(1) Brussels Ia’s anchor defendant mechanism untouched.

(34) ff the AG uses the opportunity to clarify CJEU Nintendo,  with respect to Article 8)1)’s condition of ‘same situation in law’: the AG suggests the Court clarify that the application of different national laws as a result of intellectual property rights’ territorial scope, does not stand in the way of the situation being the same in law in the case of a Union trademark.

Next the AG discusses the issues also of relevance in ia CJEU C‑145/10 Painer, namely the question of sameness in fact, and argues for a flexible interpretation despite the defendants at issue not being contractually linked. He suggests inter alia that it would run against the intention of the Regulation to force the claimant into proving the anchor defendant be the main instigator of the infringement. Along similar lines, that the anchor defendant is not a corporation itself but rather one of its directors, with domicile in a different Member State, does not in the view of the AG prevent him being used as anchor defendant, provided (77) claimant prove at the start of proceedings that the director actively engaged in the infringement or should have known about it but did not stop it.

One can see merit in the AG’s approach in that it, as he also suggests, addresses the issue of abuse of the anchor defendant mechanism. On the other hand, this engagement with some of the merits of the case always raises the issue of how intensive that can /ought to be at the jurisdictional stage without leading to a ‘mini’ trial’. It may be preferable simply to hold that as a director of a corporation, one should not be surprised to be used as jurisdictional anchor for that corporation’s infringements, in one’s place of domicile.

Geert.

EU Private international law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.482 ff.

Posted on

X v PayPal. Questionable Dutch compulsory settlement jurisdiction reignites discussion similar to English scheme of arrangement tourism. Also raises the question whether compulsory settlements are ‘contracts’ under Rome I.

The Dutch first instance judgment in Groningen  earlier this month, in X v PayPal (Europe) S.a.r.l. & Cie S.C.A., sees claimant debtor essentially seeking a compulsory settlement – CS. PayPal (established in Luxembourg) is the only debtor refusing the settlement proposed by claimant’s bank.

The CS is not listed in Annex I to the Insolvency Regulation 2015/848 (always check for the consolidated version, for the Annex is frequently updated by the Member States’ communication of proceedings to be included). This is where the discussion of scope of application could and should end.

Instead, the judge tests the CS against A1(1)’s abstract criteria. She decides there is neither divestment of assets, nor a temporary stay of individual enforcement proceedings.

This then raises the applicability of Brussels Ia. Seeing as the judge finds the action does not meet with the CJEU F-Tex criteria (Brussels Ia’s insolvency exception only applies to actions which derive directly from insolvency proceedings and are closely connected with them), she holds that Brussels Ia’s ‘insolvency’ exception is not triggered and that BIa applies.

The judge then cuts the corner which English courts in schemes of arrangement have often cut, namely to consider the willing debtors, domiciled in The Netherlands, as ‘defendants’ per Brussels Ia, hereby triggering Article 8(1) BIa’s anchor defendant mechanism. The judge justifies this by stating that the other creditors are interested parties and that it is in the interest of the sound administration of justice that the CS be discussed viz the interested parties as a whole. That may well be so, however in my view that is insufficient reason for A8(1) to be triggered. A8(1) requires ‘defendants’ in the forum state, not just ‘interested parties’. The suggestion that a co-ordinated approach with an eye for all interested parties, justifies jurisdiction, puts A8(1)‘s expediency cart before the A4 ‘defendant’-horse.

The judge then also cuts corners (at least in her stated reasons) on the applicable law issue, cataloguing this firmly in Rome I. She argues that even if the CS is a forced arrangement, replacing a proposed contract which party refused to enter into, it is still a contractual arrangement. That is far from convincing.

Equally not obvious is as the judge holds, that  per A4(2) Rome I, the party required to effect the ‘characteristic performance’ of a compulsory settlement, is the claimant-debtor of the underlying debt, leading to Dutch law being the lex causae.

The judgment at the very least highlights the continuing elephant in the restructuring tourism room, namely the exact nature of these proceedings under Brussels Ia, EIR and Rome I.

Geert.

Posted on

G I Globinvestment. A jurisdiction finding with core shortfalls on Brussels Ia.

In G I Globinvestment Ltd & Ors v VP Fund Solutions (Luxembourg) SA & Ors [2022] EWHC 1872 (Comm) wealthy Italian investors seek to recover losses which they suffered when investments they had made plummeted in value at the outset of the COVID pandemic. Defendants are in various jurisdictions. Most have accepted jurisdiction, two of them, one based in Luxembourg, the other in Liechtenstein, challenge jurisdiction.

The claim against the Liechtenstein defendant is subject to common law rules, the country not being a party to Lugano. I will leave that further undiscussed here, suffice to say the challenge was unsuccessful.

The claim against the Luxembourg based defendant was issued before Brexit implementation date and subject to Brussels Ia. It claims there is an A25 exclusive choice of court clause in the investment fund’s general subscription terms, and Vineall DJ discusses it with reference to the general A25 outline in PIFSS v Piqtet.

Parties are agreed [64] – wrongly, nota bene, that on formal validity, the question is whether there has been an actual consensus between the parties, clearly and precisely demonstrated, and on material validity, the question is whether the dispute between the parties arose or originated from the particular legal relationship in connection with which the clause was concluded. That is the kind of agreement which would see my students fail a Brussels Ia question.

[65] a further major error is made with the parties seemingly agreeing that ‘whether the claim falls within the scope of the [clause], that question is to be answered according to Luxembourg law’.

The conclusions are [88] that there is no [forum clause] in the in the Subscription Agreement, although there is choice of law clause; 88.2. There is no EJC in the Offering Document; The Offering Document wrongly asserts that there is a jurisdiction clause in the Subscription Agreement; That is insufficient to establish a clearly and precisely demonstrated consensus; no consensus as to jurisdiction is demonstrated: the result of the conflicting documents is a muddle; therefore there is no exclusive jurisdiction clause on which VP Lux can rely.

I have not got the kind of access to the file to say the outcome is factually wrong – the route to it certainly is and simply wrong in law.

The judge also [89] concludes that whether one of the claimants is a consumer who can sue in England and Wales need not be decided:  ‘That issue does not seem to me to be entirely straightforward and since it is not necessary to resolve it in the light of my conclusions about [choice of court] I prefer not to decide it’: why not?: VP Lux contest jurisdiction and it is the judge’s task under Brussels Ia to assess the existence of jurisdiction on any of the Brussels Ia grounds.

Had the judgment been issued in exam season it would have been obvious material for ‘spot the Brussels Ia errors’.

Geert.

 

Posted on

Galapagos v Kebekus. Freeport’s unfinished anchor mechanism analysis continues to spook the intensity of merits review at the jurisdictional stage.

Galapagos Bidco SARL v Kebekus & ors [2021] EWHC 68 (Ch) is yet again a fairly extensive first instance judgment merely on the issue of jurisdiction, entertaining Article 8(1) Brussel Ia’s anchor defendant mechanism as well as Article 25 choice of court.

On A8(1), focus of the discussion was the extent of a merits review under A8(1), which I also discuss  in Sabbagh v Khoury and Senior Taxi v Agusta Westland (both referred to here by Zacaroli J at 44 ff.; as was nb PIS v Al Rajaan). The issue was raised in CJEU C-98/06 Freeport but not answered. The judge here uses the notion of ‘sustainable claim’ to ensure absence of abuse of the anchor mechanism, concluding at 132 after fairly serious if arguably not excessive engagement with the merits, that the conditions of A8(1) are fulfilled.

Article 25 choice of court is discussed obiter at 138 ff., leading to some discussion on the timing of the binding character of the clause upon various parties (and a minor side-issue re Brexit).

A case-management stay was also applied for, with the judge justifiably adopting the strict approach at 160 that such a stay must not be used to circumvent the inapplicability of an Article 34 BIa challenge (the A34 route was dropped; in the light of A25 jurisdiction being established, it would be unavailable at any rate): case-management stay in such circumstances is in essence an application for forum non conveniens which is not permitted under BIa.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Heading 2.2.13.1 (in particular 2.496); Heading 2.2.15.3.2.

Posted on

Weco projects: on Yachts lost at sea, anchor jurisdicton (that’s right), lis alibi pendens, carriage, ‘transport’ and choice of court.

In Weco Projects APS v Piana & Ors [2020] EWHC 2150 (Comm),  Hancock J held on a case involving Brussel Ia’s consumer title, including the notion of contract of ‘transport’, Article 25’s choice of court regime, and anchor jurisdiction under Article 8(1) BIa.

The facts of the case are complex if not necessarily complicated. However the presence of a variety of parties in the chain of events led to litigation across the EU. Most suited therefore to be, as WordPress tell me, the 1000th post on the blog.

For the chain of events, reference is best made to the judgment itself. In short, a Yacht booking note, with choice of court and choice of law was made for the Yacht to be carried from Antigua to Genoa. Reference was also made to more or less identical standard terms of a relevant trade association. A clause was later agreed with the identity of the preferred Vessel to carry out the transfer, followed by subcontracting by way of a Waybill.

The Yacht was lost at sea. Various proceedings were started in Milan (seized first), Genoa and England.

At 21, Hancock J first holds obiter that express clauses in the contract have preference over incorporated ones (these referred to the trade association’s model contract), including for choice of court. Readers will probably be aware that  for choice of law, Rome I has a contested provision on ‘incorporation by reference’, although there is no such provision in BIa.

Next comes the issue of lis alibi pendens. Of particular note viz A31(2) [‘Without prejudice to Article 26, where a court of a Member State on which an agreement as referred to in Article 25 confers exclusive jurisdiction is seised, any court of another Member State shall stay the proceedings until such time as the court seised on the basis of the agreement declares that it has no jurisdiction under the agreement’] is the presence of two prima facie valid but competing exclusive choice of court agreements. Hancock J proceeds to discuss the validity of the English choice of court agreement in particular whether the businessman whose interest in sailing initiated the whole event, can be considered a consumer.

The judge begins by discussing whether the contract concerned is one of mere ‘transport’ which by virtue of A17(3) BIa rules out the consumer title all together. At 37 it is concluded that the contract is indeed one of transport and at 37(8) obiter that freight forwarding, too, is ‘transport’. Hancock J notes the limited use of CJEU authority, including Pammer /Alpenhof. In nearly all of the authority, the issue is whether the contracts at issue concerned more than just transport, ‘transport’ itself left largely undiscussed.

Obiter at 75, with reference to CJEU Gruber and Schrems, and also to Baker J in Ramona v Reliantco, Hancock J holds that Mr Piana had failed to show that the business use of the Yacht was merely negligible.

Following this conclusion the discussion turns to the impact of the UK’s implementation of the EU’s unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations, with counsel suggesting that the impact of these is debatable, in light of A25 BIa’s attempt at harmonising validity of choice of court. Readers will be aware that A25’s attempt at harmonisation is incomplete, given its deference to lex fori prorogati). Hancock J does not settle that issue, holding at 111 that in any event the clause is not unfair viz the UK rules.

Next follows the Article 8(1) discussion with reference to CJEU CDC and to the High Court in Media Saturn. Hancock J takes an unintensive approach to the various conditions: they need to be fulfilled without the court at the jurisdictional stage getting too intensively caught up in discussing the merits. At 139 he justifiably dismisses the suggestion that there is a separate criterion of foreseeability in A8(1). On whether the various claims for negative declaratory relief are ‘so closely connected’, he holds they are on the basis of the factuality of each being much the same and therefore best held by one court. Abuse of process, too, is ruled out per Kolomoisky and Vedanta: at 143: there is no abuse of process in bringing proceedings which are arguable for the purposes of founding jurisdiction over other parties.

(The judgment continues with extensive contractual review of parties hoping to rely on various choice of court provisions in the chain).

Quite an interesting set of Brussels Ia issues.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, big chunks of Chapter 2.

 

 

 

Posted on

Senior Taxi v Agusta Westland. Again on merits review and anchor defendants.

In Senior Taxi Aereo Executivo LTDA & Ors v Agusta Westland S.p.A & Ors [2020] EWHC 1348 (Comm) Waksman J discusses the same issues which I analysed in my review of Sabbagh v Koury (and he refers to that case at 51 ff). Proceedings arise out of the fatal crash of an Agusta Westland AW 139 twin turbine helicopter on 19 August 2011, during a flight from the Petrobras P-65 offshore oil platform in the Atlantic, west of Rio de Janeiro, to Macae Aerodrome in Brazil.

First and third defendant are an Italian company. Second defendant, AgustaWestland Ltd is an English company and the anchor defendant per A8(1) Brussels IA. At 32:

‘Defendants’ contention is that in order for Article 8 (1) to apply at all, the claim against the anchor defendant must at least be a sustainable one. I described this as “the Merits Test”. For present purposes, the requirement of sustainability can be equated with “viability”, “a real prospect of success”, a “serious issue to be tried” or a “good arguable case”. Neither party sought to argue that any fine point of distinction between these various expressions was relevant here.’

Reisch Montage and Freeport of course are CJEU authority referred to. As is Kolassa for the CJEU consideration of ‘merits review’ (particularly there: taking account of both defendant and claimant’s arguments) under A25 and A26 BIA) and CDC for the CJEU’s most recent proper discussion of the issue (at 86 Waksman J suggest CDC is not a ruling on the merits issue).

At 65 ff Waksman J follows the majority in Kabbagh, and not the dissent of Lady Justice Gloster – I as noted was more enclined to agree with her. Having confessed to his preference for there being a merits test, he then seeks to distinguish the CJEU in Reisch by focusing on the CJEU there finding on the basis of a ‘procedural bar’ in the Member State of the anchor defendant. At 83:

‘I do not find the reasoning of the CJEU here persuasive and I consider that the decision should be distinguished if possible. It can be distinguished because it is very clear from the judgments that the focus was on a national rule as to admissibility of the claim. Even allowing for differences of language, the expression “procedural bar” is not apt to include a lack of any substantive merit. Reisch is not therefore an obstacle to deciding that there is a Merits Test.’

And at 85:

‘that the reasoning of the court in Reisch was concerned more with what it simply saw as an illegitimate incursion of a domestic procedural rule (a bankrupt cannot without more be sued in ordinary litigation) into the operation of Article 6 (1). That, in and of itself decided the point. It was a question of form and not substance. But the Merits Test is a matter of substance.

Held: there is a Merits Test which must be satisfied before A8(1) can be invoked. That merits test is not met in casu.

A8(1)’s ‘so closely connected’ test clearly requires some appreciation of the facts and the legal arguments, as well as a certain amount of taking into account the defendant’s arguments. Yet this in my view does not amount to a merits test, and ‘sustainability’, “viability”, “a real prospect of success”, a “serious issue to be tried” or a “good arguable case” may well be synonyms – but there are not the same as an A8(1) merits test.

One to watch upon appeal.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.12.1