EUPillar BGH, 24.3.2011

Summary

The plaintiff first brought an action for injunction, information and damages because of an alleged infringement of a design patent in Poland. Then the plaintiff brought another action for the injunction of the distribution and production of pens because of an alleged infringement of another design patent in Germany. The court had to decide whether the exercise of the German courts’ jurisdiction was contrary to Art. 27 Brussels I. The court stated that ‘the same cause of action’ as in Art. 27 (1) Brussels I wasn’t given if the plaintiff has brought separated claims before the courts of different Member States because of an infringement of different design patents. In the present case the plaintiff brought two actions before the courts of different Member States. The action in Poland concerned the design patent no. 6751 whose protection was limited to Poland. The action in Germany concerned the infringement of the design patents no. 23 to 25 of the international ‘Sammelgeschmacksmuster’ DM/064576. Art. 27 (1) Brussels I aims to avoid irreconcilable decisions within the meaning of Art. 34 no. 3 Brussels I. The actions concerned different design patents. The protection of these two design patents was limited to their respective countries (territoriality principle). Therefore it wasn’t possible that the decisions could be incompatible. This also means that the exercise of the jurisdiction of German courts wasn’t contrary to Art. 27 (1) Brussels I. The judgment is correct.