Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T07:43:11.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

II. CYBER-TORTS AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION: THE PARIS COURT OF APPEAL MAKES A STAND

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2009

Natalie Joubert
Natalie Joubert
Affiliation:
Maître de conférences University of Bourgogne, member of the Centre de recherche sur le droit des marchés et des investissements internationaux (CREDIMI).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Current Developments: Private International Law
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , April 2009 , pp. 476 - 484
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 British Institute of International and Comparative Law

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Article 5(3) Brussels I Regulation 44/2001.

2 Thus also allowing preventive legal action to be taken, Case C-167/00 Henkel [2002] ECJ I 8111. This has been interpreted by the European Court of Justice as meaning either the place where the harm was suffered or the place where the tortious act was committed, Case 21/76 Mines de potasse d'Alsace [1976] ECJ and Case C-68/93 Shevill [1995] ECJ I.415, in which the Court restricted jurisdiction based on the place where the harm was suffered to rule solely in respect of the harm caused in the forum State.

3 Such as, in France, Article 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4 Court of Cassation, 1st Civil Division, 9 December 2003, Cristal—a patent infringement case—Bull. I, no 245, D 2004, AJ 276, obs C Manara, RTD Com 2004.281, comment by Pollaud-Dulian, Rev Crit DIP 2004.632, comment by Cachard, JDI 2004. 873, comment by Huet, JCP 2004.II.10055, comment by Chabert; Court of Cassation, Commercial Division, 20 March 2007,—an unfair competition case where jurisdiction was exercised on the mere allegation that marketing was carried out in France-Bull. IV no 91, JCP 2007.II.10088, comment by M-E Ancel, Rev Crit DIP 2008.322, comment by Treppoz. The Cour de Cassation firmly reasserted its position in its annual report: Rapport annuel 2005 de la Cour de cassation, La documentation française, 63 f; see also H Gaudemet-Tallon ‘Droit international privé de la contrefaçon’ D 2008, Dossier 735.

5 Dow Jones & Company, Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56.

6 For a general analysis of the mechanism in French law, see C Chalas, L'exercice discrétionnaire de la compétence juridictionnelle en droit international privé, foreword by H. Muir Watt, PUAM, 2000; A Nuyts, L'exception de forum non conveniens (étude de droit international privé comparé) Bruylant/LGDJ, 2003.

7 C Chalas, cited above; N Joubert, La notion de liens suffisants avec l'ordre juridique (Inlandsbeziehung) en droit international privé, foreword P. Lagarde, Travaux du Credimi 29, Litec, 2007; L Usunier, La régulation de la compétence juridictionnelle en droit international privé, Etude de droit comparé en matière civile et commerciale, Economica, 2007, foreword H Muir Watt: D Bureau and H Muir Watt, Droit international privé, tome II, PUF, 2007, no. 1016 ff; American Law Institute, Intellectual Property, Principles Governing Jurisdiction, Choice of Law, and Judgments in Transnational Disputes, Proposed Final Draft, http://www.ali.org/doc/2007_intellectualproperty.pdf

8 See N Joubert, La notion de liens suffisants avec l'ordre juridique (Inlandsbeziehung) en droit international privé, cited above.

9 N Joubert, cited above, no 35 f.

10 S 23 ZPO, property jurisdiction.

11 P Hammje, La contribution des principes généraux du droit à la formation du droit international privé, PhD dissertation Paris I, 1994, no 685 f; N Joubert, cited above, nos 77 ff.; L Sinopoli, Le droit au procès équitable dans les rapports privés internationaux, PhD dissertation Paris I, 2000, no 8; regarding the issue of whether a sufficient contact as jurisdictional basis—and more generally the reasonableness of jurisdiction—is required by public international law, see N. Joubert, cited above, nos. 17 f.

12 Case C-167/00 Henkel [1 October 2002] 2002, ECJ I p 8111.

13 Case C-168/02 Kronhofer, [10 June 2004] ECJ I 6009; Case C-539/03 Roche Nederland, [13 July 2006] ECJ, M-E Ancel, ‘Contrefaçon de marque sur un site web: quelle compétence intracommunautaire pour les tribunaux français?’, Mélanges Linant de Bellefonds, 2007, Litec, 1–24, specifically nos 16 f.

14 Court of Cassation, 1st Civil Division, 9 December 2003, cited above.

15 International Shoe v Washington, 326 US 310 (1945).

16 On the contrary, general jurisdiction is given when there are substantial and continuous contacts between the defendant and the forum State. The courts will then have jurisdiction over any lawsuit against the defendant.

17 Hanson v Denckla, 357 US 235, 253 (1958).

18 World wide Volkswagen Cor. v Woodson, 444 US286 (1980); Burger King v Rudzewicz, 471 US 462 (1985); Asahi Metal Industry, 480 US 102 (1987); for a more detailed study of the American approach: Tray, ‘Minimum Contacts in Cyberspace: The Classic Jurisdiction Analysis in a New Setting’, (2002) Journal of High Technology Law, 85Google Scholar; Rustad and Koenig, ‘Harmonizing Cybertort Law for Europe and America’ (2005) 5 J High Tech L 13, 20; N Joubert, cited above, nos 406 f, C Chalas, cited above, no 42 f; A Mirandes, La compétence inter-étatique et internationale des tribunaux en droit des Etats-Unis, Paris, Economica, 2002; O Cachard, La régulation internationale du marché électronique, LGDJ Paris, 2002.

19 Zippo Zippo Mfg Co v Zippo Dot Com, Inc, 952 F Supp 1119 (WD Pa 1997); same solution in Cybersell, Inc v Cybersell, Inc, 130 F.3d 414 (9th Cir 1997).

20 Bensusan Restaurant Corp v King, 937 F Supp 295 (SDNY 1996). In other more recent cases, the courts examined whether the defendant had ‘targeted’ the forum state with its business—which means more than just placing its products in the stream of commerce (Asahi)—a test very similar to the effect test developed in Calder v Jones (465 US 783 (1984).

21 This theory was systematized by O Cachard, cited above nos 645 f, under the name ‘théorie de la focalisation’.

22 LG Köln, 20 April 2001, 81 O 160/99, http://www.jurpc.de/rechtspr/20010148.htm; OLG Köln, 24 April 2006, 6 U 145/05; OLG Köln, 30 October 2007, 6W161/07; contra OLG Karlsruhe, 10 July 2002 (Intel Fall) MMR 12/2002, 814.

23 BGH 13 October 2004, Hotel Maritime, IZR 163/02; BGH, 30 March 2006, I ZR 24/03; BGH 15 February 2007, I ZR 114/04; regarding the application of article 15 of the Brussels I Regulation: BGH, 17 September 2008, III ZR 71/08.

24 OGH, 29 May 2001, 4 Ob 110/01g, BOSS, ÖJZ 2001, 848; OGH, 11 August 2005, 4 Ob 98/05y; Czernich, Tiefenthaler and Kodek, Kurzkommentar Europäisches Gerichtsstands- und Vollstreckungsrecht. EuGVVO und Lugano Übereinkommen, (2nd ed, 2004); regarding the old Austrian jurisprudence that required minimum contacts to justify the exercising of jurisdiction (Indikationentheorie), see N Joubert, cited above, nos 466 f.

25 OGH, 29.5.2001, BOSS, cited above.

26 TGI Paris, 11 February and 11 March 2003, Journal du Droit International (2004) 491, comment by JS Bergé.

27 Court of Appeal in Orléans, 6 May 2003, SA les jolies céramiques sans kaolin c/ Sté Mridul Entreprises, Sté Trademark Tiles LTD, Journal du Droit International 2004, 193, comment by A Huet, Revue critique de droit international privé (2004) 139, comment by H Gaudemet-Tallon.

28 Case C-911/95 [17 November 1998] ECJ I, 7091; see M-E Ancel, ‘Un an de droit international privé du commerce électronique’, Communication Commerce Electronique (2007) no 1, no 6; O Cachard, cited above, nos 683 f.

29 On this question, see M-E Ancel, ‘Un an de droit international privé du commerce électronique’, Communication Commerce Electronique (2007) no 1, no 6 who shows that French courts are then looking for a sufficient contact between the claim and the forum to grant provisional or protective measures in the same way as for exercising jurisdiction on the merits because they are in fact looking for jurisdiction on the merits in such cases; TGI Paris, ord. Réf., 2 November 2005, Court of Appeal in Paris, 14 June 2006; TGI Paris, ord. Réf. 11 October 2006.

30 Court of Appeal in Paris, 4th division, Section A, 26 April 2006, SA Normalu c/ SARL Acet, CCE 2006, comm. 106, obs. C. Caron; Court of Appeal in Paris, 4th division, Section A, 6 June 2007, JCP 2007.II.10151, comment by M-E. Ancel, LPA 2007, no 224, comment by Mendoza-Caminade, CCE 2007, Comm no 119, obs Caron; Court of Appeal in Paris, 4th division, Section B, 9 November 2007, D. 2008. AJ 8 obs. Manara, M-E Ancel, CCE 2008, no 1, chron. 1; Court of Appeal in Versailles, 2 November 2006, M-E Ancel, CCE 2008, no 1, chron 1, spec no 14; Court of Appeal in Paris, 4th division, Section A, 18 June 2008, JCP 2008.II.10180, comment by Chabert.

31 O Cachard, cited above, no 661; for a more general criticism of the American jurisprudence, see N Joubert, cited above, nos 424 f.

32 See C Chabert, JCP 2008.II.10180, cited above.

33 JS Bergé, JDI 2004.491.

34 M-E Ancel, CCE 2006, étude 23.

35 E Treppoz, Rev Crit DIP 2008.336.

36 H Gaudemet-Tallon, Dalloz 2008, cited above, specifically no. 8; M-E Ancel, ‘Contrefaçon de marque sur un site web: quelle compétence intracommunautaire pour les tribunaux français ?’, spec n 22.

37 Court of Appeal in Paris, 26 April 2006, cited above.