EUPillar Cynthia Van Belle, Kuijer & Partners BV and Joost Van Diepen v. Luxus Import-Groothandel Houtproducten VOF, J. Van Hedel and N. Waalder

Summary

The claimants are respectively the distributor in Belgium, the distributor in The Netherlands and the registered trade mark holder of “Bear Chair” patio furniture. The defendant Luxus Import-Groothandel Houtproducten VOF uses the trade mark of the claimants through the Google AdWords service to direct clients to its own website. The claimants sue the defendant for trademark infringement and unfair trade practices. They argue the Belgian courts have jurisdiction because every internet user who types in the search term “bearchair” is directly led to the website of the defendant through a sponsored hyperlink. All defendants are seated or domiciled in The Netherlands. DECISION OF THE COURT Prohibitory injunctions such as these are governed by the same criteria that are applicable to extra-contractual liability, cf. Art. 1382 Belgian Civil Code. Unfair trade practices are a special form of delict or quasi-delict, and if they present a cross-border element they fall within the scope of Art. 5(3) Brussels I Regulation. To determine its jurisdiction, the court must determine whether there is a significant connecting link between the disputed facts and the Belgian courts. A communication which is spread on the internet can have a global impact, because of the worldwide accessibility of the internet. This is not enough to conclude, without further examination of the facts, that there is a significant connecting link with every country in the world. The fact that there are internet users in the judicial district of Brussels is not enough to establish the jurisdiction of the Brussels courts. In case C-51/97 (Réunion européenne), the ECJ stressed that if the place where the harmful event occurred is difficult or indeed impossible to determine, the application of Art. 5(3) on the basis of the place of the event causing the damage is excluded. In the case at hand, the harmful event took place in The Netherlands. The Belgian courts lack jurisdiction. SHORT CRITIQUE The Court concludes that proceedings brought before it are matters relating to tort within the meaning of Art. 5(3) Brussels I Regulation, on the basis of Belgian law (art. 1382 Belgian Civil Code) and Belgian case law. It would have been better had the court referred to case law of the ECJ.