Research Handbook on Cross-border Enforcement of Intellectual Property
Show Less

Research Handbook on Cross-border Enforcement of Intellectual Property

Edited by Paul Torremans

The Research Handbook on Cross-border Enforcement of Intellectual Property systematically analyses the unique difficulties posed by cross-border intellectual property disputes in the modern world. The contributions to this book focus on the enforcement of intellectual property primarily from a cross-border perspective. Infringement remains a problematic issue for emerging economies and so the book assesses some of the enforcement structures in a selection of these countries, as well as cross-border enforcement from a private international law perspective. Finally, the book offers a unique insight into the roles played by judges and arbitrators involved in cross-border intellectual property dispute resolution.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 8: Jurisdiction in intellectual property cases

Paul Torremans


Jurisdiction in intellectual property (IP) cases is a topic that has been discussed frequently over the last decade. Having been involved in these discussions and having published in the area repeatedly, it is not my aim to repeat the whole discussion in this contribution or to summarise it here. Instead I would like to offer a European perspective, with a focus on very recent developments and the highly problematical points. In that perspective there is also space for suggestions for law reform in this area. Jurisdiction is in this area governed by the Brussels I Regulation. The rules of that Regulation apply to intellectual property, and that results, for example, in a standard rule that the defendant can always be sued in the courts of the country where he or she is domiciled. That rule does not create particular difficulties for IP cases. It does therefore not come as a surprise that it has been retained as a cornerstone in the conflict of laws in intellectual property (CLIP) Principles. On this point no reform is needed. Where the proposals on intellectual property do propose change is the current situation in the Brussels I Regulation that makes any alternative jurisdiction rule subject to the requirements of Article 4(1) having been met; that is without a domicile in one of the member states no court can take jurisdiction on the basis of an alternative rule contained in the Brussels I Regulation.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.