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-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