Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:11:12.291Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intellectual Property: Jurisdiction or Choice of Law?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2002

K. Lipstein
K. Lipstein*
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge; Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge
Get access

Abstract

It has long been recognised that Industrial and Intellectual Law is territorial. A comparison with laws relating to landed property led English courts to conclude that they should refrain from exercising jurisdiction when any such foreign laws are involved. The Brussels Convention has eliminated this self-restraint. However it has been overrruled that in reality a special choice of law is in issue. The territoriality of legislation has a positive as well as a negative effect. Negatively no foreign law will be applied locally. Choice of law is replaced by a division of laws territorially.

Type
Shorter Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , 24 June 2002 , pp. 295 - 300
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 [1998] F.S.R. 222, 226.

2 [1999] Ch. 33, 52. See Bartin, Clunet 1934, 781-833, esp 783, 799, 805, Batiffol & Largarde, Droit international privé II (7 edn. 1983) nos. 529-531, Mayer, Droit international privé (5 edn. 1994) nos. 632, 1007, Loussouarn & Bourel, Droit international privé (5 edn. 1996) no. 426; in greater detail Pollaud-Dulian, Propriété Littéraire et Artistique, Jurisclasseur de droit international vol. 9, Fasc. 563-60, Soergel-Kegel Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch vol. 10 (12 edn. 1996) art. 12, Appendix nos. 22, 26, 28; von Bar. Internationales Privatrecht II (1991) nos. 702-708; id. UFITA vol. 108 (1988) 27 49, at 39-41; Kropholler, Internationales Privatrecht (3 edn. 1997) paras. 22 I, II 3, 53 VII 2.

The following were not available: Ulmer, Das Immaterialgüterrecht im Internationalen Privatrecht (1975); Regelin, Das Kollisionsrecht des Immaterialgüterrechts an der Schwelle zum 21 Jahrhundert, Muth, Die Bestimmung des anwendbaren Rechts bei Urheberrechtsverletzungen im Internationalen Privatrecht, (Baden-Baden 1999); Lürger, “Internationales Deliktsrecht im Internet”, in Aufbruch nach Europa (2001) 479; Bettinger-Thum, “Territoriales Markenrecht im Global Village”, GRUR Int. (1999), 659.

3 For England see text to n. 10 below.

4 (1906) 3 C.L.R. 479 on appeal from [1905] V.L.R. 612.

5 [1893] A.C. 602.

6 [1995] R.P.C. 438, 447.

7 [1991] Ch. 75.

8 Carter (1990) 61 B.Y.I.L. 400, 402; Fentiman [1997] C.L.J. 503, 504; but see Arnold (1990) 12 E.I.P.R. 254.

9 See n. 11 below.

10 [1895] Ch. 535.

11 Repeated in Mölnlycke v. Procter & Gamble [1992] 1 W.L.R. 1113, 1117-1118.

12 Def Lepp v. Stuart Brown [1986] R.P.C. 273, 275; Apple Corp. v. Apple Computer [1992] F.S.R. 431, 470; Norbert Steinhardt v. Meth (1960-1961) 105 C.L.R. 440, 443 unless the legislation determines otherwise. Abkco v. Music Collection [1995] R.P.C. 657, 660 and see Copyright Act 1988 s. 16(2).

13 Lipstein [1972 I] Hague Rec. 99 at 204-205; (1977) 26 I.C.L.Q. 884, 893.

14 The Halley (1861) L.R. 2 Adm. & Ecc. 3, 13, 15 per Sir Robert Phillimore—but see the Privy Council (1868) L.R. 2 P.C. 190 on different grounds; Be Blain (1819) 12 Ch. D 522, 521, 529, 531; Cooke v. Charles A. Vogeler Co. [1901] A.C. 102, 110.

15 But see von Bar II no. 110.

16 Fort Dodge Animal Health Ltd. v. Akzo Nobel N.V. [1998] I.L.Pr. 132, at p. 141, para. [22] (C.A.), [1998] F.S.R. 222, at p. 229.

17 Chiron v. Evans [1996] F.S.R. 863, 866; Pearce v. Ove Arup [1991] Ch. 293 at 308; Mölnlycke v. Procter and Gamble [1992] 1 W.L.R. 1113, 1118; Coin Controls Ltd. v. Suzo International (UK) Ltd. [1999] Ch. 33, 41, 48.

18 Pearce v. Ove Arup above.

19 Fort Dodge Ltd. v. Akzo Nobel NV. [1998] I.L.Pr. 732, at p. 741, para. [22], [1998] F.S.R. 222, at p. 229; Plastus Kreativ A.B. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. [1995] R.P.C. 438, at p. 447.

20 [2000] Ch. 403; [2000] 3 W.L.R. 332; [1999] 1 All E.R. 769.

21 See n. 5 above.

22 [2000] Ch. 403; [2000] 3 W.L.R. 332; [1999] 1 All E.R. 769.