EUPillar BVBA P. v. P. SpA - Kh. Gent, 2 January 2003

Summary

The claimant ordered 885 branded handbags from the Italian defendant. These handbags were destined for its own Japanese client, so the claimant sent the handbags on directly. Upon receipt of the handbags, the Japanese client gave some remarks and said that a number of the handbags were most likely counterfeited. In the end, the client kept 252 handbags for resale. The claimant had to reimburse its Japanese clients for the other handbags. The defendant argues that the handbags couldn’t possibly have been counterfeits and refuses to compensate the claimant. The claimant then initiated proceedings in Belgium. The claimant lodges a claim in tort for the counterfeiting of goods. It argues that the Belgian courts of Ghent have jurisdiction over its claim on the basis of Art. 5(3) Brussels I. The defendant retorts that the alleged counterfeiting didn’t take place in Belgium and didn’t originate there. In the Bier v. Mines de Potasse d’Alsace case (21/76), the ECJ decided that the expression “place where the harmful event occurred” in Article 5(3) Brussels I must be understood as being intended to cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it. The place of the event giving rise to the counterfeiting couldn’t possibly have taken place in Belgium, only in Italy. Only the place where the damage occurred could found the jurisdiction of the Belgian courts. In Dumez France v. Hessische Landesbank (C-220/88), the ECJ decided that the expression "place where the harmful event occurred" contained in Article 5(3) may refer to the place where the damage occurred, but the latter concept can be understood only as indicating the place where the event giving rise to the damage, and causing tortious, delictual or quasi-delictual liability to be incurred, directly produced its harmful effects upon the person who is the victim of that event. Regard should be had only to the place where the damage first manifested itself, and not to the consequences of the damage or the place where the victim suffered financial damage (cf. Marinari v. Lloyds Bank, C-364/93). The fact that the Belgian claimant had to reimburse its Japanese client for the purchase price was no direct consequence of the harmful event. The Belgian courts lack jurisdiction. Short critique The Court correctly applies Brussels I.