Investigación, docencia y práctica del Derecho internacional privado | Research, Teaching & Practice on Private International Law
6 June 2014
The ECJ Judgment 3 April 2014, case C-387/12, Uwe Spoering vs. Hi Hotel
por María Dolores Ortiz Vidal
PIL Law Reseacher, University of Murcia, Spain
1.- Mr. Spoering, photographer, gave the reproduction of its photographs to Hi Hotel HCF SARL for the use, exclusively, in their brochures and websites. However, Hi Hotel HCF SARL gave, without authorization, his right to the publishing house Phaidon-Paris and Phaidon-Paris sends those pictures to Phaidon-Berlin. Subsequently, Mr. Spoering discovered in a library in Germany that his photographs have been published by Phaidon-Berlin in a book on interior architecture.
2.- Mr. Spoering took legal action against Hi Hotel HCF SARL in the German courts for infringement of his intellectual property rights. Mr. Spoering initiated legal actions only against Hi Hotel HCF SARL, and not against Phaidon-Berlin, in Germany for damages that occurred in Germany. Therefore, the German court can only hear about civil liability for infringement of copyright, inspired by the principle of territoriality and according to art. 5.3 Bruxelles I Regulation, when its legal system regulates and protects the intellectual property rights and if the damage occurs in the territory of the Member State where the event occurs.
3.- The ECJ interprets correctly interprets Art. 5.3 B-I regulation in this particular case, where the harm occured in a Member State which is different that the Member State where the initial act occured. The initial act was not against the German IP Law because it occurred in France non in Germany. Hence that initial act as not a direct harm from the point of view of German Law.
2.- Mr. Spoering took legal action against Hi Hotel HCF SARL in the German courts for infringement of his intellectual property rights. Mr. Spoering initiated legal actions only against Hi Hotel HCF SARL, and not against Phaidon-Berlin, in Germany for damages that occurred in Germany. Therefore, the German court can only hear about civil liability for infringement of copyright, inspired by the principle of territoriality and according to art. 5.3 Bruxelles I Regulation, when its legal system regulates and protects the intellectual property rights and if the damage occurs in the territory of the Member State where the event occurs.
3.- The ECJ interprets correctly interprets Art. 5.3 B-I regulation in this particular case, where the harm occured in a Member State which is different that the Member State where the initial act occured. The initial act was not against the German IP Law because it occurred in France non in Germany. Hence that initial act as not a direct harm from the point of view of German Law.
Otros artículos de interés
The ECJ Judgment of 13 March 2014, Marc Brogsitter v. Fabrication de Montres Normandes EURL, case C-548/12
Judgement of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 March 2014, Marc Brogsitter v. Fabrication de Montres Normandes EURL, case C-548/12, Report of cases still not avai...
The ECJ Judgment 19 December 2013, case C-9/12, La Maison du Whisky SA
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 December 2013, Corman-Collins SA v La Maison du Whisky SA, case C-9/12, Report of cases still not available, e-versi...
The ECJ Judgment 16 January 2014, case C-45/13, Andreas Kainz vs. Pantherwerke AG
1. International jurisdiction and applicable law are paramount for the entrepreneur who is planning to trade in an international area. Companies should develop ...
The ECJ Judgment 3 April 2014, case C-438/12, Weber v. Weber: Exclusive Jurisdiction and Lis pendens
The Judgment of the ECJ of 3 april 2014, case C-438/12, Weber v. Weber, deserves great recognition. It encourages the free movement of judgments and the existen...