Case C-24/16, Nintendo – jurisdiction by design

Nintendo is suing companies in the German courts for the alleged infringement of its design rights. However, the German courts wonder if they have jurisdiction to decide the case and the scope of any measures they might impose. The first problem is that the German defendant is only a subsidiary and its parent company is domiciled in France. The second problem is that although the defendant’s website has images on it that correspond to Nintendo’s design rights, these have been put there so that consumers know immediately that the defendant’s goods can be used in Nintendo’s games consoles.

Continue reading

Case C-547/14, Philip Morris Brands – the Second Tobacco Products Directive is invalid

Is the EU’s Second Tobacco Products Directive 2014/40/EU invalid?

Continue reading

Case C-484/14, McFadden – a mere conduit?

If a person offers non-password-protected access to the Internet, and an unknown user passes a piece of copyright-infringing music over that Internet connection, then can the person offering the Internet access be absolved of legal liability on the basis that he is but a ‘mere conduit’ under the EU’s ‘E-Commerce’ Directive 2000/31/EC?

Continue reading

Case C-314/14, Sanoma Media Finland – exceeding the maximum amount of hourly advertising?

Media companies interrupt television programmes for advertising breaks. At the end of television programmes there is yet more advertising. According to Article 23 of the EU’s Audiovisual Media Services Directive 2010/13/EC, the maximum amount of advertising per hour is 12 minutes. In this case, a company has been exceeding that amount by splitting up what appears in the television screen so that while one programme’s end-credits roll other programmes are trailed, and during the trails the corporate logos and goods made by the sponsoring companies also appear on the screen. Is this not also corporate advertising that should rightly be included in the hourly amount of advertising?

Continue reading

Case C-30/14, Ryanair – grounding a go compare an airfare website

Price-comparison websites in the EU are often lawful because the websites they take their information from are databases frequently unprotected by either copyright or the ‘sui generis’ right enshrined in the EU’s Database Directive 96/9/EC. This is true of Ryanair’s website. But Ryanair’s website is however protected by a plank of deviant Dutch ‘copyright’ law. In this case, a Dutch website that compares the price of airfares is seeking to rely on a Dutch exception to the Dutch ‘copyright’ rule, an exception that corresponds to one found in the EU’s Database Directive. The legal question has become whether the Directive applies to all databases and thus websites – even the unprotected ones – and, if so, whether the price-comparison website qualifies as a ‘lawful user’, who does not need to obtain Ryanair’s consent to use Ryanair’s website.

Continue reading