EUPillar Brouwerij Bosteels NV v. De Gustibus NV and Stralsunder Brauerei

Summary

The claimant produces the internationally renowned “Kwak” beer. This beer is served in a dedicated type of glass. The name and the glass are protected by several registered Benelux trademarks. The claimant sues the German brewer of a beer that infringes its trademarks, and the Belgian owner of a Brussels café where the infringing beverage is sold. The second defendant, the German brewer, challenges the international jurisdiction of the Belgian courts. Pursuant to Art. 37 of the Uniform Benelux Law on Marks, “jurisdiction in respect of mark cases shall be determined by the domicile of the defendant or by the place where the undertaking giving rise to the litigation originated or was or is to be performed.” This jurisdictional rule takes precedence over the Brussels I Regulation. The relevant undertaking is the obligation not to infringe the claimant’s trademark. The alleged infringement takes place in Belgium, so that the Belgian courts have jurisdiction. For the sake of completeness, the jurisdiction of the court as against the second defendant can also be based on Art. 6(1) Brussels I. The President of the Commercial Court decides that it is established that the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings. The claimant did not sue the second defendant merely to deprive it from its natural forum. The second defendant actively promoted its products in Belgium with the help of the first defendant. Moreover, the same law is applicable to the claims against both defendants, namely the Uniform Benelux Law on Marks. Measures taken on the basis of that Law have their effect on the complete Benelux territory. That is why the risk of irreconcilable judgments should be avoided. However, this reasoning is valid only for Benelux territory. The claimant would like to broaden its claim to include measures in other, non-Benelux countries. The Court does not have jurisdiction to pronounce these measures on the basis of Art. 6(1). The trademarks in other countries are each governed by the national trademark law of that country. The claimant’s trademark in Germany is also the object of nullity proceedings. Pursuant to Art. 22(4) Brussels I, in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents, trademarks, designs, or other similar rights required to be deposited or registered, only the courts of the Member State in which the deposit or registration has been applied for have jurisdiction. The President of the Commercial Court therefore accepts its jurisdiction, but only as to the territory of the Benelux. Short critique The President of the Commercial Court of Ghent considers that the Uniform Benelux Law on Marks takes precedence over the Brussels I Regulation. The legal basis for that statement, not given by the President of the Court, can be found in Art. 71(1) Brussels I.