Case number and/or case name
OLG Hamburg, 18.9.2014 – 3 U 96/12
Summary
The parties’ dispute concerned a declaratory action, an action for an injunction and an action for damages. The claims re-garded a violation of a trademark. The parties had been in-volved in another dispute in Belgium that concerned the dis-tribution of the same products as in the German proceedings.
It was questionable whether the German proceedings had to be stayed pursuant to Art. 27 Brussels I.
The court held that Art. 27 (1) Brussels I didn’t apply to the case. The ‘same cause of action’ within the meaning of the rule couldn’t be stated if one of the proceedings concerned claims for payment of contractual penalty and the other main-ly concerned damage claims even if they were factually based on the distribution of the same products.
The judgment is correct. The rules applying to the actions in the Belgium proceedings differ substantially from those apply-ing to the German proceedings. In the first proceeding the action concerned a contractual relation between the parties (contractual penalty). The German proceeding solely regards claims resulting from tort. This indicates that there is no risk of irreconcilable judgments because the decision on claims in one of the proceedings generally doesn’t influence the deci-sion in the other.