Hittade artikel på lexology.com
"Blomqvist v Rolex: Supreme Court issues final judgment in counterfeit case
MAQS Law Firm
Mads Marstrand-Jørgensen
Denmark
June 9 2014
In a recent case that has now reached the Supreme Court(1), Blomqvist had bought one counterfeit Rolex watch from Chinese website Fashion Watch Online.
The watch was posted to Denmark and, upon arrival, was confiscated by Customs. As Blomqvist did not agree to the destruction of the watch, Rolex sued Blomqvist before the Maritime and Commercial Court, which ruled in favour of Rolex in its judgment of November 8 2011 (for further details please see "Court rules on customs confiscation of counterfeit goods").
Blomqvist appealed to the Supreme Court, which made a preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) (for further details please see "Blomqvist v Rolex continued: Supreme Court issues remarks in counterfeit case").
In a judgment of February 6 2014,(2) the ECJ confirmed that Rolex's IP rights had been infringed.
The Supreme Court found that under EU Regulation 1383/2003, there had been a violation of a copyright or trademark right which was protected in Denmark, and that the violation had taken place in Denmark. The Supreme Court stated that Blomqvist had bought the watch for private use and that consequently he had not violated copyright or trademark law and therefore the question was whether Fashion Watch Online had violated Rolex's rights.
In accordance with the ECJ judgment in C-98/13, the Supreme Court found that by entering into a commercial agreement on the sale and dispatch of the watch with Blomqvist, Fashion Watch online had violated Rolex's IP rights.
Consequently, the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the Maritime and Commercial Court and ordered that the watch be destroyed without compensation.
The Supreme Court ordered Blomqvist to pay Dkr30,500 as costs at first instance and Dkr100,000 as costs to the Supreme Court.
For further information on this topic please contact Mads Marstrand-Jørgensen at MAQS Law Firm by telephone (+45 33 12 45 22), fax (+45 33 93 60 23) or email ([email protected]). The MAQS Law Firm website can be accessed at www.maqs.com.
Endnotes
(1) Case No 361/2011(May 15 2014).
(2) Case No C-98/13"
"Blomqvist v Rolex: Supreme Court issues final judgment in counterfeit case
MAQS Law Firm
Mads Marstrand-Jørgensen
Denmark
June 9 2014
In a recent case that has now reached the Supreme Court(1), Blomqvist had bought one counterfeit Rolex watch from Chinese website Fashion Watch Online.
The watch was posted to Denmark and, upon arrival, was confiscated by Customs. As Blomqvist did not agree to the destruction of the watch, Rolex sued Blomqvist before the Maritime and Commercial Court, which ruled in favour of Rolex in its judgment of November 8 2011 (for further details please see "Court rules on customs confiscation of counterfeit goods").
Blomqvist appealed to the Supreme Court, which made a preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) (for further details please see "Blomqvist v Rolex continued: Supreme Court issues remarks in counterfeit case").
In a judgment of February 6 2014,(2) the ECJ confirmed that Rolex's IP rights had been infringed.
The Supreme Court found that under EU Regulation 1383/2003, there had been a violation of a copyright or trademark right which was protected in Denmark, and that the violation had taken place in Denmark. The Supreme Court stated that Blomqvist had bought the watch for private use and that consequently he had not violated copyright or trademark law and therefore the question was whether Fashion Watch Online had violated Rolex's rights.
In accordance with the ECJ judgment in C-98/13, the Supreme Court found that by entering into a commercial agreement on the sale and dispatch of the watch with Blomqvist, Fashion Watch online had violated Rolex's IP rights.
Consequently, the Supreme Court confirmed the judgment of the Maritime and Commercial Court and ordered that the watch be destroyed without compensation.
The Supreme Court ordered Blomqvist to pay Dkr30,500 as costs at first instance and Dkr100,000 as costs to the Supreme Court.
For further information on this topic please contact Mads Marstrand-Jørgensen at MAQS Law Firm by telephone (+45 33 12 45 22), fax (+45 33 93 60 23) or email ([email protected]). The MAQS Law Firm website can be accessed at www.maqs.com.
Endnotes
(1) Case No 361/2011(May 15 2014).
(2) Case No C-98/13"
Är det det som kallas för en AAA-kopia? 
