Proportionality of the penalty for trade mark infringement (ECJ)

According to the Judgment of the Court of Justice (19.10.2023) in Case C-655/21 (G. ST. T.), a custodial sentence of a minimum of five years for trade mark infringement may prove to be disproportionate. 

Criminal proceedings for the infringement of trade marks were brought in Bulgaria against the owner of an undertaking selling clothes. The Bulgarian authorities conducted an inspection in a commercial establishment rented by the undertaking. They found that the signs affixed on the goods were similar to already registered trade marks. The trader was charged before the competent Bulgarian court in respect of use of trade marks without the consent of their proprietors. The Bulgarian legislation contains provisions which define the same conduct both as a criminal offence and as an administrative offence. 

That court has asked the Court of Justice for clarification on the compatibility with EU law of the Bulgarian law penalising trade mark infringements, given that the penalties provided for are severe and the absence of a clear and precise criterion as regards categorisation as a criminal or as an administrative offence leads to contradictory practice and unequal treatment of litigants who have committed practically the same acts. 

In the first place, the Court recalls that trade mark infringement may be categorised by national law both as an administrative offence and as a criminal offence. In that regard, it points out that, according to the principle of the legality of criminal offences and penalties, criminal law provisions must be accessible, predictable and clear as regards the definition of the offence and the sentencing. Thus, every citizen must understand which conduct will make him or her criminally liable. The fact that trade mark infringement may also give rise to administrative penalties in Bulgaria does not mean that that principle has not been observed. 

In the second place, the Court finds that a national provision which, where a trade mark is infringed repeatedly or with significant harmful effects, provides for a custodial sentence of a minimum of five years is contrary to EU law. 

The Court states that, even though the directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights[1] does not apply in criminal matters, pursuant to the TRIPS Agreement [2] , which binds both the European Union and its Member States, those Member States may impose a custodial sentence for certain acts of trade mark infringement. Admittedly, in the absence of EU legislation, the Member States have the power to determine the nature and level of the applicable penalties. 

Nevertheless, those punitive measures must be proportionate. Making provision for a custodial sentence of a minimum of five years for all cases of unauthorised use of a trade mark in the course of trade does not satisfy that requirement. Such legislation fails to take account of any specific aspects of the circumstances in which those offences were committed. (curia.europa.eu/photo: freepik.com)

Judgement is available here

__________

1 Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. 

2 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.

Comments

Post a Comment

Editorial

Editorial
George Kazoleas, Lawyer

Top Stories

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

Image
The European Ombudsman inquiry into the Commission’s handling of a request for text messages between its President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company is a wake-up call for all EU institutions about ensuring accountability in an era of instant messaging. One year after the initial request by a journalist, the Commission has still not clarified whether messages reported to concern major vaccine procurement deals exist and whether the public is entitled to see them. The Ombudsman had asked the Commission, in a finding of maladministration in January, to conduct a more thorough search for the text messages. The Commission’s recent response failed to say whether it had looked directly and correctly for the text messages and if not, why not. While the response recognised that work-related text messages can be EU documents, it reiterated that the Commission’s internal policy is, in effect, not to register text messages. The Ombudsman has closed  the inquiry  and upheld her find
Read more

A notary does not breach the sanctions against Russia when he or she authenticates the sale of a property owned by an unlisted Russian company (ECJ)

Image
In tis Judgment in Case C-109/23 (Jemerak) [1] the Court of Justice ruled that a notary does not breach the sanctions against Russia when he or she authenticates the sale of a property owned by an unlisted Russian company.  By authentication, a notary does not provide legal advisory services, but acts independently and impartially in the context of a function entrusted to him or her by the State.  A notary in Berlin (Germany) refused to authenticate a contract for the sale of an apartment situated in Berlin and owned by a Russian company. According to that notary, it cannot be ruled out that that authentication infringes the prohibition on the provision of legal advisory services to legal persons established in Russia. The European Union introduced that general prohibition [2] in 2022 with a view to increase pressure on Russia to end its war of aggression against Ukraine [3] . The Berlin Regional Court referred questions to the Court of Justice on this matter. The Court replies that th
Read more

ECtHR elects a new Vice-President of the Court and two new Section Presidents

Image
The European Court of Human Rights has elected on 23.9.2024 a new Vice-President of the Court – Judge Ivana Jelić (elected in respect of Montenegro). She will take up her duties on 1 November 2024.  The Court has also elected at the same date two new Section Presidents – Judges Lado Chanturia (elected in respect of Georgia) and Ioannis Ktistakis (elected in respect of Greece). They will also take up their duties on 1 November 2024. Ivana Jelić was born on 17 March 1975 in Podgorica, Montenegro and was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 12 July 2018. Lado Chanturia was born on 14 April 1963 in Tsalenjikha, Georgia, was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 8 January 2018 and is Vice-President of Section since 18 May 2023. Ioannis Ktistakis was born on 3 January 1971 in Thebes, Greece and was elected Judge of the European Court of Human Rights on 8 March 2021. (source/photo: echr.coe.int) Read more here
Read more

A national court is not required to apply a decision of its constitutional court that infringes EU law (ECJ)

Image
In its Judgment of 26.9.2024 in Case C-792/22 (Energotehnica) the Court of Justice ruled as regards the right to an effective remedy that a national court is not required to apply a decision of its constitutional court that infringes EU law. In such a case, the national court may not be penalised.  Following the death of an electrician by electrocution during a maintenance operation, an administrative procedure was initiated against his employer. At the same time, criminal proceedings for negligence and manslaughter were initiated against the supervisor. The victim’s next of kin also became civil parties to the criminal proceedings.  The administrative court hearing the dispute concluded that the present case did not involve an ‘accident at work’. It annulled the administrative penalties imposed on the employer. According to national legislation, as interpreted by the Romanian Constitutional Court, that administrative decision prevents the criminal court from reconsidering whether the
Read more

The banks Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse participated in a cartel in the sector for suprasovereign bonds, sovereign bonds and public agency bonds denominated in US dollars

Image
According to the Judgment of the General Court in Cases T-386/21 (Crédit agricole and Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission) and T-406/21 (UBS Group and Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) v Commission), the banks Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse participated in a cartel in the sector for suprasovereign bonds, sovereign bonds and public agency bonds denominated in US dollars (‘SSA Bonds’).  The General Court of the European Union confirms the Commission’s finding of an infringement and maintains the amount of the fines imposed in 2021. In 2018, the European Commission initiated proceedings for infringement of the competition rules involving Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, Crédit agricole and Credit Suisse (now UBS Group [1] ).  In 2021, the Commission found that those banks had entered into an agreement on the secondary market for suprasovereign, sovereign and agency bonds denominated in dollars (SSA bonds). According to the Commission, traders employed by those ban
Read more

First judgment of the ECHR: Lawless v. Ireland

Image
60 years ago, on 14 November 1960, the Court delivered its first judgment, Lawless v. Ireland, with René Cassin as its President. The judgment concerned preliminary objections and procedural questions regarding the application, on which a judgment on the merits was delivered the following year. Since its inauguration the Court has delivered 23,291 judgments on just over 51,650 applications. The case was filed by Gerard Richard Lawless, who had been an IRA member, although he claimed to have left the IRA. He was arrested on 11 July 1957, as he was about to travel to Great Britain from Ireland, and subsequently detained under the special powers of indefinite detention without trial under the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1940. The case was filed by Lawless for violation, by the Irish Government, of Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the European Convention of Human Rights, providing rights to liberty and security, fair trial and the principle of 'no punishment without law'
Read more

Unreasoned decision dismissing objections by applicant who was imprisoned pursuant to judgment not concerning him violated ECHR: Judgement against Greece

Image
In Chamber's judgment dated 15.10.2024 in the case of Nsingi v. Greece (application no. 27985/19) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 5 (right to liberty and security / right to compensation) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the rejection of the applicant’s claim for compensation for having been imprisoned pursuant to a sentence that had been handed down in respect of a different person, for whom he had been mistaken at the time of his arrest.  On 6 June 2018 the applicant was arrested by the police and, after verification of his identity, was registered under the name of an individual who had been sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for drug possession. The prosecutor ordered that he be sent to prison.  On 20 June 2018 the applicant demanded that he be released, objecting that he was not the person who had been convicted and sentenced. The Criminal Court dismissed the applicant
Read more