[Hague-jur-commercial-law] meetings in The Hague - clarification

[ute decker]

Just a quick clarification on the discussion of the scope of the Hague 
Convention/IP/ Art. 1 par.3:

IFPI's position is that any exclusion of IP issues should be limited to 
cases to the extent that they have as their subject the validity of certain 
IP, in particular IP the validity of which depends on registration, as well 
as unregistered trademark.  We have not as yet seen a justification for any 
exclusion of infringement cases from the scope of the Convention.  
Certainly, from our point of view a sweeping exclusion of infringement cases 
would be the worst case scenario.

IFPI consistently expressed concern about the proposal on scope/IP presented 
by the Commission and expressed support for the position taken by the US 
(not to extend the exclusion to infringement cases).

Ute Decker
Senior Legal Adviser
IFPI London

=========

Manon wrote on 24 April:

The issue of an open versus closed list of IP exclusion from the scope
lasted quite a while.  As well as whether infringement should be in or
out.
The International Chamber of commerce explained that a recent study
showed that most B2B contract with choice of court include IP related
matters and that it would be unworkable to exclude them.  A patent
lawyer talked about how infringement was neccessarily in for patent.
Surprisingly the IFPI (the Recording industry) made a statement of
support for the patent lawyer (they do not have a "problem", copyright
and copyright infringement is absolutly covered,  I guess it was an IP
collegial move?) The US wants infringement included since bringing
infringement has many advantages (such as damages). In the afternoon,
Australia stated that they had change there position to exclude
copyright but they needed stronger language in public policy exception
in 7 and 5.

_________________________________________________________________
Sign-up for a FREE BT Broadband connection today! 
http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband