EUPillar Cynthia Van Belle, Kuijer & Partners BV and Joost Van Diepen v. L.K.

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 has registered the domain names www.bear-chair.nl, www.bear-chair.com, and www.bear-chair.be with the goal to direct users automatically 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 goes to the websites www.bear-chair.be or www.bear-chair.nl is automatically redirected to the defendant’s website. DECISION OF THE COURT The defendant failed to enter an appearance. The defendant is domiciled in the Netherlands, so that the court has to examine its jurisdiction of its own motion pursuant to Art. 26 Brussels I Regulation. Art. 5(3) Brussels I Regulation provides that the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred have international jurisdiction. 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.