|
|
|
| Authored by: cricketjeff on Tuesday, October 30 2012 @ 07:48 AM EDT |
While in one sense you are correct, in this case you aren't. I specifically said
UK court, not English court, merely meaning a court in the UK it was sitting as
an EU court. This is why the German court was in the wrong, it too was sitting
as an EU court, and a junior one to the court where the action had already
commenced.
An English court, acting as an English court would not have had any jurisdiction
and, apparently unlike a US court, would not have claimed any, but as design
patents only exist as EU and not national devices over here it would not be
relevant.
---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 30 2012 @ 08:16 AM EDT |
| Cricketjeff is correct in what he says.
Read the Court of Appeals
decision. It may help.
59. Further Judge Birss was not
sitting as a purely national court. He was sitting as a Community design court,
see Arts. 80 and 81 of the Designs Regulation 44/2001. So his declaration of
non-infringement was binding throughout the Community. It was not for a national
court - particularly one not first seized - to interfere with this Community
wide jurisdiction and declaration.
Acting as a Community design
court, J Birss made a European Community decision which is superior to the
decision of the German court. The German decision should have never been
made.
j [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
