An eu conflict-of-laws approach to proprietary aspects of intellectual property rights

• Pages: 509-526
• Author: Birgit van Houtert

AN EU CONFLICT-OF-LAWS APPROACH

TO PROPRIETARY ASPECTS

OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

Birgit Van houtert*

Maastricht University

SUMMARY: I INTRODUCTION.— II DE LEGE LATA: 1. Lex loci protectionis; 2.

Lex originis.– III DE LEGE FERENDA: 1. Lex loci protectionis: 1.1 Characteri-

sation of proprietary aspects of IP rights; 1.2. ‘Sitz’ of the legal relationship and

the territorial protection of IP rights; 1.3. Lex loci protectionis under Rome I and

Rome II; 2. Special conict-of-laws approach regarding initial ownership in case of

employment: 2.1 A plea for objective connecting factors; 2.2. Loci laboris as main

connecting factor; 3. Derogation mechanisms.— IV CONCLUSION.

I INTRODUCTION

When a court of an EU Member State (MS) has to deal with a cross-

border dispute involving an intellectual property (IP) right, questions

may arise concerning the validity of the IP right, or who is the owner

of this right 1. These questions are examples of issues related to pro-

prietary aspects of IP rights. At regional level, there exist uniform rules

on proprietary aspects of unitary EU rights, such as EU Trademarks,

* Assistant Professor of Private International Law at Maastricht University (birgit.van-

houtert@maastrichtuniversity.nl). All the websites mentioned in this study were visited on 12

May 2024.

1 Intellectual Property (IP) is often divided into two main categories: copyright and related

rights, and industrial property such as patents, trademarks, industrial designs, geographical indi-

cations. See World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), «What is Intellectual Property?»,

2020, p. 3, available at https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=4528

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW ON RIGHTS IN REM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

DERECHO INTERNACIONAL PRIVADO SOBRE DERECHOS REALES EN LA UNIÓN EUROPEA

Maria Font-Mas (dir.)

ISBN: 978-84-1381-849-8

Madrid, 2024

pp. 509-525

DOI: 10.37417/PILRIRUE/22

Marcial Pons Ediciones Jurídicas y Sociales

Editado bajo licencia Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

510 BIRGIT VAN HOUTERT

Benelux Trademarks and Designs 2. International treaties related to IP

rights merely provide minimum protection that Contracting States, in-

cluding MS, must follow. Hence, with respect to national IP rights, such

as trademarks, the answers to the aforementioned questions generally

have to be found in national IP laws 3.

In cross-border transfers of national IP rights, the Rome I Regula-

tion refers to the applicable law regarding contractual issues but not

the proprietary aspects of transfers 4. With respect to non-contractual

obligations arising from an infringement of a national IP right, Article

8(1) Rome II Regulation refers to the law of the country for which

protection is claimed, lex loci protectionis 5. However, it has genera-

lly been argued that Rome II does not concern proprietary aspects of

IP rights 6. Because of the lack of a uniform conict-of-laws rule on

proprietary issues of national IP rights at EU and international level,

MS courts have to determine the applicable law on the basis of their

national conict-of-laws rules 7.

2 Regulation (EU) No. 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark OJ L 154, 16.6.2017;

Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 on Community designs OJ L 3, 5.1.2002; Council Regu-

lation (EC) No. 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights, OJ L 227, 1.9.1994; Regulation

(EU) No. 1257/2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary

patent protection, OJ L 361, 31.12.2012; Agreement on a Unied Patent Court OJ C 175,

20.6.2013. The property aspects of unitary IP rights are governed by «a dual track system»

that means national law is applicable when indicated in the Regulation involved. See D. Van

enGelen, «The Netherlands», in kono, T. (ed.), Intellectual Property and Private International

Law: Comparative Perspectives, Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2012, p. 873. Benelux Convention

on Intellectual Property (Trademarks and Designs) of 25 February 2005, last amended 1 June

2018. Nonetheless, Article 4.8bis stipulates a conict-of-laws rule.

3 As EU law on copyrights have not resulted in full harmonisation, national copyright

laws remain relevant.

4 Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome

I), OJ L 177, 4.7.2008. See M. Giuliano, P: laGarDe, Report on the Convention on the law

applicable to contractual obligations, OJ C 282, 31.10.1980, No C 282/10.

5 Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations

(Rome II), OJ L 199, 31.07.2007. See also recital 26 in the Preamble to Rome II.

6 See, for instance, P.L.C. torreMans, Intellectual Property and Private International

Law, 3th ed., Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2024, pp. 817-818.

7 Nonetheless, some scholars and MS courts have argued that IP treaties contain

conict-of-laws rules. With respect to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary

and Artistic Works of 1886, 828 UNTS 221, see e.g., S. J. schaaFsMa, Intellectual Property

in the Conict-of-law Rule in the Principle of National Treatment, Cheltenham, Edward El-

gar Publishing, 2022. See e.g. the Dutch Court of Appeal of The Hague 22 September 2015,

ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2015:2592, para. 20. However, the CJEU held that Article 5(1) Berne

Convention does not contain a conict-of-laws rule. CJEU 30 June 2005, Tod’s Spa, C-28/04,

ECLI:EU:C:2005:418, para. 32. On the scholarly debate regarding conict-of-laws rules in

copyright and related rights treaties, see M.M.M. Van eechouD, Choice of Law in Copyright

and Related Rights: Alternatives to the Lex Protectionis, Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer Law

International, 2003, pp. 95-127. With respect to the Paris Convention for the Protection of In-

dustrial Property of 1883, 828 UNTS 305, see M. perteGás senDer, Cross-border Enforcement

of Patent Rights, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001, pp. 221-224.