Communication: judgment No. 0559 of 2020

IDENTIFIER
62020CA0559
LANGUAGE
English
COURT
Court of Justice of the European Union
AG OPINION
NO
REFERENCES MADE
2
REFERENCED
1
DOCUMENT TYPE
Communication: judgment

Judgment



20.6.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/10


Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Saarbrücken — Germany) — Koch Media GmbH v FU

(Case C-559/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property rights - Directive 2004/48/EC - Article 14 - Concepts of ‘legal costs’ and ‘other expenses’ - Warning notice in order to ensure enforcement of intellectual property rights out of court - Lawyers’ fees - Classification - National provision limiting the amount of those costs recoverable under certain conditions)

(2022/C 237/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Saarbrücken

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Koch Media GmbH

Defendant: FU

Operative part of the judgment

1.

Article 14 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights is to be interpreted as meaning that the expenses incurred by a holder of intellectual property rights in respect of his or her representation by a lawyer in order to ensure that those rights are enforced out of court, such as the costs of giving warning notice, are covered by the concept of ‘other expenses’ within the meaning of that provision.

2.

Article 14 of Directive 2004/48 is to be interpreted as not precluding a national provision which provides that, in a situation where the infringement of an intellectual property right has been committed by a natural person outside his or her trade or profession, the reimbursement of ‘other expenses’ referred to in that provision, which the rightholder may claim, is calculated on a flat-rate basis of the value in dispute limited by that provision, unless the national court considers that, in view of the specific characteristics of the case before it, the application of such a limitation is unfair.


(1)  OJ C 35, 1.2.2021.



Citations

Sign up for a free moonlit.ai™ account to access all citing documents.