Öz

On what basis can courts adjudicate a case that involves an intellectual property (IP) right crossing national boundaries? The primary purpose of this article is to provide a brief answer to this question (the justiciability of foreign IP rights) under UK law within the wider context of the EU law. It concentrates on the justiciability of three main IP rights - copyrights, trade marks and patents. It further explains the current architecture of the legal framework applicable to UK courts and within the EU. It also explores recent jurisprudence on justiciability in the UK courts and in the Court of Justice of European Union (CJEU) in the context of claims related to IP rights with foreign elements. It provides a few conclusions to determine to what extent the current case law is consistent and whether solely accepting justiciability of a foreign IP right is enough to provide access to justice for IP holders.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Intellectual property law,copyright,trade marks,patents,justiciability,jurisdiction,private international law,access to justice,Brussels Regulation

JUSTICIABILITY OF FOREIGN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM - WITH A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE

Öz

Milli sınırları aşan fikri mülkiyet haklarını içeren bir dava mahkemelerce hangi temelde yargılama konusu olabilir? Bu makalenin ana amacı, bu soruya (yabancı fikri mülkiyet haklarının yargılanabilirliği) daha geniş Avrupa Birliği (AB) hukuku bağlamında ve İngiliz hukuku altında kısa bir cevap sunmaktır. Bu makale, üç ana fikri mülkiyet hakkının -telif hakları, ticari markalar ve patentler – yargılanabilirliğine odaklanmaktadır. Bu makale ayrıca, İngiliz Mahkemelerinde ve AB içinde uygulanabilir olan hukukî çerçevenin güncel mimarisini açıklamaktadır. Bunun yanında, yabancılık unsuru içeren fikri mülkiyet haklarıyla ilgili talepler bağlamında yargılanabilirlik üzerine yakın zamanda İngiliz Mahkemeleri ve Avrupa Adalet Divanı tarafından verilen kararları incelemektedir. Güncel içtihat hukukunun ne dereceye kadar tutarlı olduğu ve yabancı bir fikri mülkiyet hakkının yargılanabilirliğini tek başına kabul etmenin fikri mülkiyet sahipleri bakımından adalete erişim sağlamaya yetip yetmeyeceğini belirleme ile ilgili birkaç sonuç sunulmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fikri mülkiyet hukuku,telif hakları,ticari markalar,patentler,yargılanabilirlik,yetki,milletlerarası özel hukuku,adalete erişim,Brüksel Tüzüğü

Kaynakça

1. ALLAN Nick, Michael Browne and Anna Carboni, ‘Post-Brexit IP rights: what is agreed and yet to be agreed under the European Commission’s draft Withdrawal Agreement’ Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2018, Vol. 13(8), pp. 608–610.
2. ARNOLD Richard, BENTLY Lionel, DERCLAYE Estelle and DINWOODIE Graeme, ‘IP Law post-BREXIT’ Judicature, 2017, Vol. 101(2), pp. 65-71.
3. AUSTIN Graeme, ‘The Concept of “Justiciability” in Foreign Copyright Infringement Cases’ International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2009, Vol. 40(4), pp. 393-412.
4. BACON Gregory and ROOTH Katie, ‘Justiciability and litigation of foreign patents in the English courts’ Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2017, Vol. 12(10), pp. 851–859.
5. BENTLY Lionel, SHERMAN Brad, GANGJEE Dev and JOHNSON Phillip, Intellectual Property Law, OUP, 5th edn,, 2019.
6. BERCIMUELLE-CHAMOT Kevin, ‘Accessibility is the relevant criterion to determine jurisdiction in online copyright infringement cases’ Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2015, Vol. 10(6), pp. 406–407.
7. BRIGGS Adrian , ‘Jurisdiction over defences and connected claims’ Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, 2006, Vol. 4, pp. 450- 451.
8. CARY William L, ‘Federalism and Corporate Law: Reflections upon Delaware’ Yale Law Journal, 1974, Vol. 83(4), pp. 663-705.

9. CLARK Birgit, ‘Off Piste? ECJ Decides Austrian Supreme Court’s “Adwords” Jurisdiction Question in Wintersteiger’ Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2012, Vol. 7(10), pp. 701–703.
10. Communication from the Commission to the Institutions on Guidance on certain aspects of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (Brussels, 29 November 2017).
11. COOK Trevor, ‘“Brexit” and Intellectual Property Protection in the UK and the EU’ Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 2016, Vol. 21(5), pp. 355-361.
12. DICKINSON Andrew, ‘The Force be with the EU? Infringements of US Copyright in the English Courts’ Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, 2010, Vol. 2, p. 181.
13. DRAHOS Peter, A Philosophy of Intellectual Property, Ashgate, 1st edn, 1996.
14. ENGLAND Paul, ‘Cross-border actions in the CJEU and English Patents Court: Ten years on from GAT v LuK’ Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2017, Vol. 12(2), pp. 105-114.
15. European Max Planck Group on Conflicts of Laws in Intellectual Property, Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property: The CLIP Principles and Commentary, Oxford, OUP, 2013.
16. European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy, Damages in Intellectual Property Rights, available online at last revisited 9 June 2019.
17. European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy, Observatory update on Costs and Damages, available online at last revisited 9 June 2019.
18. FARRAND Benjamin, ‘Bold and newly Independent, or Isolated and Cast Adrift? The Implications of Brexit for Intellectual Property Law and Policy’ Journal of Common Market Studies, 2017, Vol. 7(2), pp. 1-16.
19. FAWCETT James J and TORREMANS Paul L C, Intellectual Property and Private International Law, OUP, 2nd edn, 2011.
20. FHIMA Ilanah, ‘Brexit: EU27 Position Paper on Intellectual Property’ Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2018, Vol. 12(2), pp. 98– 100.
21. GARNETT Richard, Substance and Procedure in Private International Law, OUP, 2012.
22. HITSEVICH Nataliya, ‘The accessibility of a website as a basis of jurisdiction in the case of IPR infringement over the internet’ Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2016, Vol. 11(11), pp. 846–855.
23. HUSOVEC Martin, ‘European Union: comment on Pinckney’ International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2014, Vol. 45(3), pp. 372-373.
24. JOSEPH Paul, ‘The rise and fall of cross-border jurisdiction and remedies in IP disputes,’ Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2006, Vol. 1(13), pp. 850-857.
25. KONO Toshiyuki and JURCYS Paulius, ‘General Report’ in KONO Toshiyuki (ed), Intellectual Property and Private International Law: Comparative Perspectives, Hart Publishing, 2012, pp. 6-216.
26. KUR Annette and DREIER Thomas, European Intellectual Property Law: Text, Cases and Materials, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013.
27. KUR Annette, ‘A Farewell to Cross-Border Injunctions? The ECJ Decisions GAT v. LuK and Roche Nederland v. Primus and Goldenberg,’ International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2006, Vol. 37(7), pp. 844-855.
28. KUR Annette, ‘Enforcement of unitary intellectual property rights: international jurisdiction and applicable law’ Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2015, Vol. 10(6), p. 468–480.
29. LARSEN Torsten Bjørn, ‘Reverse use of Article 7(5) Brussels Regime in IP litigation: can you sue from the establishment?’ Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2018, Vol. 13(10), pp. 776-781.
30. LARSEN Torsten Bjørn, ‘Wintersteiger v Coty Prestige: The place of infringement under the forum delicti rule’ Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2018, Vol. 13(3), pp. 179-185 (“Wintersteiger v Coty Prestige”).
31. LARSEN Torsten Bjørn, Intellectual Property Jurisdiction Strategies: Where to Litigate Unitary Rights vs National Rights in the EU, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2017, (“Intellectual Property Jurisdiction Strategies”).
32. LEMLEY Mark A, ‘Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding’ Texas Law Review, 2005, Vol. 83, p. 1075.
33. MARIO Franzosi, ‘GAT and Roche – Idola Fori, Teatri, Specus: Regulation 864/2007 Makes Cross-Border Patent Litigation Possible’ in TORREMANS Paul L C, Intellecutal Property and Private International Law, Edward Elgar Publishing 2015, pp. 182-190.
34. MATULIONYTE Rita, ‘Enforcing Copyright Infringements Online: In Search of Balanced Private International Law Rules’ Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law (JIPITEC), 2015, Vol. 6, pp. 132-145.
35. MCDONAGH Luke, ‘UK Patent Law and Copyright Law after Brexit Potential Consequences’ CIGI Brexit: The International Legal Implications Series, Paper No 3 (November 2017).
36. MCGOLDRICK Dominic, ‘The Boundaries of Justiciability’ International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 2010, Vol. 59(4), p. 981- 1019.
37. MIMLER Marc, ‘The Effect of Brexit on Trademarks, Designs and Other “Europeanized” Areas of Intellectual Property Law in the United Kingdom’ CIGI Brexit: The International Legal Implications Series, Paper No 7 (December 2017).
38. MORCOM Christopher, ‘The Implications of ‘Brexit’ for Trade Marks and for Practitioners in the UK: What Are the Likely Effects and What Needs to Happen Now?’ European Intellectual Property Review, 2016, Vol. 38(11), pp. 657-660.
39. NORRGARD Marcus, ‘A Spider Without a Web, Multiple Defendants in IP Litigation’ in LIEBLE Stefan and OHLY Ansgar (eds), Intellectual Property and Private International Law, Mohr Siebeck, Heidelberg, 2009, p. 221.
40. RAHMATIAN Andreas, ‘Brief speculations about changes to IP law in the UK after Brexit’ Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2017, Vol. 12(6), pp. 510-515.
41. RAMALHO Ana and GARCIA Maria C. Gomez, ‘Copyright after Brexit’ Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2017, Vol. 12(8), pp. 669–672.
42. ROSATI Eleonora, ‘Brexit and UK copyright: the story of a loss among all other losses’ Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2016, Vol. 11(8), pp. 563–564.
43. ROSATI Eleonora, ‘International jurisdiction in online EU trade mark infringement cases: where is the place of infringement located?’ European Intellectual Property Review, 2016, Vol. 38(8), pp. 482-491.
44. SINN H, ‘The Selection Principle and Market Failure in Systems Competition (MS)’ Journal of Public Economics, 1997, Vol. 66, pp. 247- 274.
45. SMITH Joel and LERICHE Alexandra, ‘CJEU Ruling in Pinckney v Mediatech: Jurisdiction in Online Copyright Infringement Cases Depends on the Accessibility of Website Content’ European Intellectual Property Review, 2014, Vol. 36(2), pp. 137–38.
46. STERK Stewart E, ‘Intellectualizing Property: The Tenuous Connections Between Land and Copyright’ Wash U L Q, 2005, Vol. 83(2), pp. 417-470.
47. TORREMANS Paul L C, ‘Copyright jurisdiction under EU private international law’ in Paul L C Torremans (ed), Research Handbook on Copyright Law (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2nd edn, 2017) pp. 556–574 (“Copyright jurisdiction”).
48. TORREMANS Paul L C, ‘Editorial: Lucasfilm v Ainsworth’ International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 2010, Vol. 41(7), pp. 751-753.
49. TORREMANS Paul L C, ‘Exclusive jurisdiction and cross-border IP (patent) infringement: suggestions for amendment of the Brussels I Regulation’ European Intellectual Property Review, 2007, Vol. 29(5), pp. 195-203 (“Exclusive jurisdiction”).
50. TORREMANS Paul L C, ‘Jurisdiction for Cross-border Intellectual Property Infringement Cases in Europe’ Common Market Law Review, 2016, Vol. 53(6), pp. 1625–1645 (“Jurisdiction for Cross-border IP Infringement Cases”).
51. TORREMANS Paul L C, ‘Litigating cross-border intellectual property disputes’ in the EU Private International Law Framework’ in BEAUMONT Paul, DANOV Mihail, TRIMMINGS Katarina and YÜKSEL Burcu (eds), Cross-Border Litigation in Europe, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2017, pp. 655–670 (“Litigating cross-border IP disputes”).
52. TORREMANS Paul L C, ‘Star Wars rids us of subject-matter jurisdiction: The Supreme Court does not like Kafka either when it comes to copyright’ European Intellectual Property Review, 2011, Vol. 33(12), pp. 813–817 (“Star Wars”).
53. TORREMANS Paul L C, ‘The Sense or Nonsense of Subject Matter Jurisdiction over Foreign Copyright’ European Intellectual Property Review, 2011, Vol. 33(6), pp. 349-356.
54. TORREMANS Paul L C, ‘The Widening Reach of Exclusive Jurisdiction: Where Can You Litigate IP Rights after GAT?’ in Arnaud Nuyts and Jean- Sylvestre Bergé (eds), International Litigation In Intellectual Property And Information Technology, 2008, pp. 61-77.
55. TRIMBLE Marketa, ‘GAT, Solvay, and the Centralization of Patent Litigation in Europe’ Emory International Law Review, 2012, Vol. 26, pp. 515-533.
56. UBERTAZZI Benedetta, ‘Intellectual Property Rights and Exclusive (Subject Matter) Jurisdiction: Between Private and Public International Law’ Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, 2011, Vol. 15(2), pp. 357-361.
57. UBERTAZZI Benedetta, Exclusive Jurisdiction in Intellectual Property, Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck 2012.
58. UBERTAZZI Luigi Carlo, ‘Brexit and the EU Patent – Part II: What shall we do?’ Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2017, Vol. 12(11), pp. 937–953.
59. UBERTAZZI Luigi Carlo, ‘Brexit and the EU patent’ Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2017, Vol. 12(6), pp. 516–525. VAN CALSTER Geert, European Private International Law, Hart Publishing, 2nd edn, 2016.
60. WAELDE Charlotte, BROWN Abbe, KHERIA Smita, and CORNWELL Jane, Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy, OUP, 4th edn, 2016.
61. YU Peter K, ‘Reconceptualizing Intellectual Property Interests in a Human Rights Framework’ U C Davis Law Review, 2007, Vol. 40, pp. 1127-1128.