itenden »Lieferketten«

This article discusses problems of personal jurisdiction and applicable law in the case of infringement of a Community design or a Community trademark. The ECJ judgment from September, 27, 2017 in the Nintendo-case broadens the application of Art. 8 Nr. 1 Brussels Ia Regulation. With respect to applicable law, the ECJ misinterprets the term »country in which the act of infringement was committed« in Art. 8 (2) Rome II Regulation as referring to the country where the event giving rise to the damage occurred. On the other hand, the Nintendo judgment stands for considerable progress in the area of international enforcement of Community industrial rights. In cases of the same defendant being accused of various acts of infringement in various Member States, the ECJ rejects the notion of referring to each alleged act of infringement in favor of an overall assessment of that defendant's conduct in order to determine the applicable law. Unionsweit vereinheitlichte Immaterialgüterrechte sollen »territoriale« Traditionen im Recht des geistigen Eigentums überwinden. Bei der Rechtsdurchsetzung wird dieses Ziel nicht immer erreicht. Aus Anlass der »Nintendo«-Entscheidung des EuGH vom 27. 9. 2017 (Rs. C-24/16 und C-25/16) untersucht der Beitrag die internationale Zuständigkeit und die Bestimmung des anwendbaren Rechts bei grenzüberschreitenden Verletzungen unionsweiter gewerblicher Schutzrechte.