Switzerland Suisse Schweiz. Report Q174

Transcription

1 Switzerland Suisse Schweiz Report Q174 in the name of the Swiss Group by Kamen TROLLER (national reporter), Manfred ARGAST, Patrick DEGEN, Jan D'HAEMER, Bernard DUTOIT, Clarence Paul FELDMANN, Peter HEINRICH, Andrea MONDINI, Christoph WILLI Jurisdiction and applicable law in the case of cross-border infringement (infringing acts) of intellectual property rights I. The state of applicable law: I.1.1 Do the domestic Courts assume jurisdiction to decide on infringements of intellectual property rights which are committed abroad? An infringement committed "abroad" is considered as an "international matter", so that the Private International Law of Switzerland (hereafter: PILS) applies, unless a treaty to which Switzerland could be bound applies (Art. 1.2 PILS). This is the case with regard to the Lugano Convention of 16 September 1988 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (hereafter: LC). a) Jurisdiction lies principally with the tribunals at the domicile of the defendant (Art. 2 LC; Art PILS) Art states that: "Swiss Courts at the defendant's domicile or, in the absence of a domicile, those at the place where the protection is sought, have jurisdiction to entertain actions pertaining to the intellectual property rights". If the defendant has no domicile in Switzerland or anywhere else, his or her ordinary Swiss residence will be held sufficient to grant jurisdiction in Switzerland, in compliance with Art PILS. b) If the defendant does neither have a domicile nor a place of residence in Switzerland, the subsidiary jurisdiction at the place where protection is sought may apply (Art PILS). As far as the Lugano Convention is concerned, its Art. 5.3 states that jurisdiction is given both at the place where the infringing act is committed and at the place where the infringing act deploys its effects. c) However, these fora are not compulsory, so that jurisdiction may also be granted in Switzerland in cases of: - implied acceptance of the jurisdiction by the defendant (Art. 18 LC; Art. 6 PILS); - agreement between the parties on jurisdiction (Art. 17 CL; art. 5 PILS); - counterclaim, if jurisdiction for the principal claim is in Switzerland and that claim and counterclaim concern the same matter (Art. 6.3 LC; Art. 8 PILS); 1

2 - arbitration agreement (Art. 7 and 177 PILS); - jurisdiction by necessity (Art. 3 PILS). I.1.2 I.1.3 I.2.1 I.2.2 If the Courts assume jurisdiction to decide on intellectual property infringements committed abroad, what are the criteria which allow jurisdiction to be attributed to the Courts of the country (e.g.: nationality of one of the parties, concomitant existence of IP infringements in the country of the Court, domicile of the defendant, etc.)? Though the main criteria to grant jurisdiction is the domicile or the place of ordinary residence of the defendant (Art. 2 LC; Art PILS), there are several subsidiary criteria that may apply, whatever the nature of the infringing act is: - place where protection is sought (Art in fine PILS); - place of the infringing act (Art. 5.3 LC); - place where the infringing act deploys its effects (Art. 5.3 LC); Is this assumption of international jurisdiction specific to the civil law courts, or does it also apply to the criminal law courts? The provisions mentioned above apply to civil matters only. As a principle, criminal law courts do not have jurisdiction with regard to infringing acts committed abroad (Art. 3.1 of the Swiss Criminal Code). Under certain circumstances, jurisdiction for criminal acts committed abroad can however be assumed, if the act: - is committed against a Swiss citizen (Art. 5 of the Criminal Code); - is committed by a Swiss citizen (Art. 6 of the Criminal Code); - is not committed against or by a Swiss citizen, but Switzerland is obliged by an international agreement to pursue the act (Art. 6bis of the Criminal Code). If the domestic Courts may assume jurisdiction to judge IP infringements committed in another country (cross-border infringements), what are the sanctions imposed by the domestic Courts? The sanctions are the ones that are available under the law determined in application of Art. 110 PILS (see hereafter, 1.3.1). Such remedies may comprise: - preliminary and permanent injunctions; - damages; - restitution of undue enrichment (profits); - actions for declaratory judgment; - publication of judgment. Can the domestic Courts only award compensation for loss (damages) or do they also assume jurisdiction to impose injunction with effects abroad? When the Swiss Court applies a foreign law in compliance with Art. 110 PILS, and that the applicable law foresees injunctions as a remedy, the Swiss Court shall deliver an injunction aimed to remedy the foreign situation. The question of recognition and enforcement of this injunction in the foreign country is obviously a matter of the foreign country courts. 2

3 I.2.3 I.3.1 I.3.2 I.3.3 I.3.4 Is there a difference between final sanctions and provisional sanctions from the point of view of international territorial jurisdiction? Principally, jurisdiction for provisional sanctions is given at the same place as jurisdiction on the merits (Art. 24 LC; Art. 10 PILS). In addition, jurisdiction for provisional sanctions is also given at the place where these sanctions are to be enforced (Art. 24 LC or Art. 10 PILS in relation with Art. 33 of the Swiss Federal Act on Civil Jurisdictions). Which law is applied by a court, which assumes jurisdiction to judge IP infringements committed in another country? As a principle, if a Swiss Court has jurisdiction according to Art. 109 PILS, it will apply the following principle: "Rights in intellectual property are governed by the law of the country for which protection of those rights is sought " (Art PILS). However, Art PILS states that: "For claims of violation of rights in intellectual property, the parties may agree, at any time after the damage occured, that the law at the place of the court applies ". Exceptionally, these rules shall not apply if, due to the facts of the case, a much stronger tie to another law is apparent (Art PILS). If the content of the foreign law cannot be determined, then the tribunal may apply Swiss law (Art PILS - see hereafter). If the infringement of intellectual property rights is the consequence of a breach of contract (license, distributorship, employment), then the applicable law is: - the law of the place of residence of the holder of the intellectual property right (Art PILS); - the law agreed upon by the parties (Art PILS); - if a labour-contract is involved, the applicable law will be the one governing the labour contract (Art PILS). Is it the law of the forum, or is it the law of the country in which the infringement has been committed? According to Art PILS, it is the law of the country where the protection of the intellectual property right is sought; since IP rights are territorial, this leads to the application of the law of the country in which the infringement, the violation of the intellectual property right has occurred. If the Swiss courts have jurisdiction and the protection is being sought for Swiss intellectual property rights, then the law of the forum and of the infringement will be identical. What is the scope of the foreign law: defining infringing acts, proof of infringement or sanctions for infringement? According to Art. 13 PILS, "the reference to a foreign law in this Act includes all the provisions which under such law are applicable to the case. [ ]". However, this provision only relates to substantive law. As far as the procedural matters are concerned, i.e. proof of infringement, the Swiss procedural laws will apply. What is the role of the parties in determining the content of the foreign law: does the burden of proof of the content of this law lie with the parties or is it for the Court, ex officio, to seek the content of the foreign law? According to Art. 16 PILS: 3

4 "1. The contents of the applicable foreign law must be established ex officio. For this purpose the collaboration of the parties may be requested. For claims of financial interest, proof may be imposed on the parties. 2. If the content of the foreign law is not ascertainable, Swiss law applies." Thus, as a principle, foreign law is established ex officio by the Court. However, the parties need to cooperate and the authority may even assign the duty to establish the foreign law to the parties in cases involving financial interests. Cases involving intellectual property rights are considered to be matters of financial interest. I.3.5 I.4.1 Does the international public order exception, which allows some countries to exclude the application of foreign law, apply for the infringement of intellectual property rights? Art. 17 PILS states that: "The application of foreign law is excluded if such application leads to a result that is incompatible with Swiss public policy." In theory, this provision also applies in cases of intellectual property infringements. However, actual cases are difficult to imagine and never happened to our knowledge in Switzerland. Expropriation of intellectual property rights without due compensation might perhaps constitute such a case. What are the conditions for the enforcement of a foreign judgement against an infringing party for IP infringement committed in another country? According to Art PILS: "Foreign decisions relating to the infringement of intellectual property rights shall be recognized in Switzerland: a. if the decision was rendered in the state of the defendant's domicile; or b. if the decision was rendered in the state with respect to which the intellectual property protection is sought and if the defendant was not domiciled in Switzerland." The above provisions are however subject to the general conditions of Art. 25 and 27 PILS and Art. 26 ff. LC. Art. 25 PILS: "I. Recognition 1. General Rule A foreign decision is recognized in Switzerland: (a) if jurisdiction lay with the judicial or administrative authorities of the country in which the decision was rendered; (b) if no ordinary judicial remedy can any longer be brought against the decision or if the decision is final, and (c) if no ground for non-recognition under Article 27 exists." Art. 27 PILS: "3. Grounds for Non-recognition 1. A foreign decision is not recognized in Switzerland if its recognition would be clearly incompatible with Swiss public policy. 4

5 2. A foreign decision is also not recognized if a party proves: (a) that neither according to the law of its domicile nor according to the law of its habitual residence, was the party properly served with process, unless the party entered an unconditional appearance in the proceedings; (b) that the judgment was rendered in violation of essential principles of Swiss procedural law, especially, the party was denied the right to be heard; (c) that a lawsuit between the same parties concerning the same case was first commenced or decided in Switzerland, or was first decided in a third country, provided that the prerequisities for the recognition of that decision are met. 3. In no other respects may the foreign decision be reviewed on the merits." I.4.2 I.4.3 I.5.1 Are there specific procedures? There are no specific procedure regarding the enforcement of foreign judgments. One needs to refer to the general provisions, i.e. Art. 29 PILS or 31 LC et seq. According to Art. 29 PILS: "(1) The request for recognition or enforcement shall be filed with the competent authority of the canton where the foreign decision is relied upon. Such request must be supported by: a. a full certified copy of the decision; b. a statement certifying that the decision may no longer be appealed in the ordinary way or that it is final; and c. in case of default judgment, an official document establishing that the defaulting party was given proper notice and had the opportunity to present its defence. (2) The proceedings shall take place on notice to the party opposing recognition and enforcement; such party may present its defence. (3) When the foreign decision is relied upon with respect to a preliminary issue, the authority before which the case is pending may itself rule on the recognition." The procedure itself will depend upon the procedural rules of the Canton where the judgment has to be enforced. If a monetary sanction is to be imposed, the enforcement procedure of the Swiss Enforcement Bankruptcy Act shall apply. What are the practical difficulties, which complicate the enforcement of foreign court decisions in intellectual property infringement matters? There are no real practical difficulties. The only one relates to the duration of the enforcement procedure, which could increase the damage substantially (in the event that there is an ongoing violation of intellectual property rights). Are there rules governing lis pendens and related actions for cases where infringement proceedings are pending in parallel before the courts of different countries? Under Art. 9.1 PILS, "when an action having the same subject matter is already pending between the same parties in a foreign country, the Swiss court shall stay the case if it is 5

6 to be expected that the foreign court will, within a reasonable time, render a decision capable of being recognized in Switzerland." If the Lugano Convention applies, the lis pendens is ruled by Art LC. I.5.2 II. II.1.1 II.1.2 II.2.2 Do the rules on lis pendens and related actions require the court to decline jurisdiction in favour of another court, or do they merely allow it to stay proceedings while awaiting the result of the pending dispute in another country? If the PILS applies, the Courts will stay the proceedings whilst awaiting the result of the pending dispute in another country, in compliance with Art. 9.1 PILS. After that the foreign court has rendered its decision, the Swiss court will dismiss the action (Art. 9.3 PILS). If the LC applies, the proceedings are stayed only until determination of the jurisdiction of the Court which was first invoked (Art. 21 LC). Proposals for the future: Do the Groups think that it is possible and desirable to seek a harmonised system for cross-border litigation, while intellectual property rights are currently, in the majority of cases, solely of national scope? A certain harmonization of procedural rules has already been achieved thanks to the Lugano Convention. It might be desirable to go further on a worldwide level, e.g. in the framework of the Hague Convention. As far as the applicable law is concerned, since intellectual property rights are on the one hand already widely harmonized, but on the other hand, remain territorial, a worldwide harmonization of the rules of conflicts is not an absolute priority. However, a harmonized system solely for intellectual property litigation might create new jurisdictional problems because intellectual property claims are often raised in connection with other claims such as unfair competition or antitrust defences. Do the Groups think that such a harmonised system requires the existence of intellectual property rights which have the same effect in various countries (e.g. at least a regional right)? The Group does not consider it to be necessary. It would certainly be very difficult, albeit unrealistic, to try to push the harmonisation of intellectual property rights any further than it is at present. It is obvious that similar or identical intellectual property rights in different countries make cross-border litigation easier to handle. What should be the preferred criteria for choice of forum? No difference should be made whatever the infringing act is. The solution of the Lugano Convention (art. 2 and 5.3, which correspond to the PILS art. 109) is a good one. One might wish to extend the available forums by adding the domicile of the party whose rights have been infringed (as this is now the case in the new Swiss law of 2000 on internal forums). Therefore the following alternative criteria could be used: - domicile of the party, whose intellectual property rights have been violated; - domicile of the defendant; 6

7 - place of the infringing act; - place of the effects of the infringement. Some consider that only the Court at the place of the Defendant should have jurisdiction for cross-border litigation, so as to avoid forum-shopping. II.2.3 II.2.4 II.3.1 II.3.2 II.4.1 II.4.2 II.5.1 What then should be the applicable law to organise the infringement proceedings? The applicable law should be the procedural law of the place of jurisdiction (lex fori). What extent would the power of the judge have: merely assessing the infringement, or also assessing the validity of the foreign right with the possibility of invalidating it? One would have to make a distinction between the infringing acts on the one hand, and the validity of the foreign intellectual property rights on the other hand. In cases of infringement, see II.2.2. above. When the validity of the intellectual property right is at stake, the Swiss courts only have jurisdiction if the concerned right has been created and/or registered in Switzerland. This means that when the claim concerns the validity of a foreign intellectual property right, the action cannot be brought in front of a Swiss Court, even if the Defendant is located in Switzerland (Art PILS). However, when a Swiss Court has jurisdiction over a claim for infringement of an intellectual property right, then it has power to evaluate the validity or registration of the foreign right if an objection or a counterclaim is raised by the alleged infringer, such a decision on the validity of the right shall only bind the parties without having any influence upon the validity of the foreign right itself (19 July 1996, Softwatch II, Sic! 1997, 96). What is the applicable law for judging infringement and sanctions applicable to it? See answer to above. And what scope should the application of this law have (defining infringing acts, proof of infringement or sanctions for infringement)? See answer to I.3.3. above. Should the rules on lis pendens and related actions apply in the event of infringement proceedings, which are pending before the courts of the various countries? Yes, in order to avoid conflicting decisions on same issues. See also answer to and above. Should it be provided that it is mandatory for courts to decline jurisdiction in favour of the court first seized of the case, or should there be a rule for a stay of proceedings? See answer to above. Should there be provisions for the automatic enforcement of court decisions which are made in such a system or should these decisions always be the object of a procedure for exequatur as normally used to give effect to foreign judgements? There should be an exequatur-procedure, even if it is simplified, e.g. on the model of the New York Convention on recognition and execution of arbitral awards of

8 II.6.1 II.6.2 II.6.3 II.7.1 II.8.1 What is the scope of sanctions which may be imposed by a Court deciding on infringement committed in various countries: can the Court be empowered to judge on the validity of intellectual property rights existing in each of these countries? No consensus could be achieved on this issue. The Swiss tribunal should not be empowered to invalidate erga omnes the rights granted in other countries, but that it might be desirable to empower it to assess the validity of such rights inter partes if raised as a defence to infringement. Can the Court impose measures of prohibition applicable wherever this right is valid? The Courts at the domicile of defendant should be empowered to do so. However, for the time being, if the applicable law is the one of the country for which the protection is being sought, the holder of the intellectual property right may choose between several laws if he/she is claiming protection for his/her intellectual property right in several countries. In this case, the competent jurisdiction may release an injunction against the prohibited acts in these countries if the applicable law allows it. Could the Court order the infringing party to compensate for loss suffered in all countries? The answer to this question is the same as the previous one. Should the search for a system, making it possible to organise the progress of proceedings against cross-border acts of infringement, pass through the conclusion of a multilateral agreement or is it necessary, according to the Groups, to favour bilateral or regional solutions. A multilateral agreement would be preferable, though it seems nearly impossible to achieve such a result regarding the question of applicable law, and very difficult as far as jurisdiction is concerned. Only regional solutions seem to have some future. The Groups are invited to formulate all other observations on this question, based in particular on their national experience. The Swiss Group does not have any further observations. Summary Switzerland has exhaustive rules concerning cross-border infringements of IP rights. The applicable statute is the Swiss Private International Law Act, completed by the Lugano Convention of 16 September 1988 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters which corresponds to the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 on the same topic, and which constitutes conventional law superseding, in the event of contradiction, the national law. Swiss Courts have jurisdiction in civil cases in the event of infringements of IP rights abroad, if Switzerland is the domicile or the place of ordinary residence of the Defendant (if the latter has no domicile anywhere), or if Switzerland is the place where the protection is sought (i.e. if a Swiss IP right is violated). The Lugano Convention extends the jurisdiction to the Court of the place where the infringing act is committed or where it deploys its effects. The jurisdiction covers both provisional proceedings and proceedings on the merits. In criminal cases, Swiss jurisdiction for violations committed abroad is limited to acts committed by or against Swiss citizens or if the jurisdiction results from an international convention. 8

9 The law applicable to cross-border violations is the law of the country for which protection of the right is sought, with all its provisions of substantive law. Parties may be asked by the Court to assist it to establish the content of the foreign law. Foreign judgements concerning IP right infringements will be recognised and enforced in Switzerland, if the decision was rendered in the state of Defendant's domicile or by courts at the place where protection was sought (if Defendant has no Swiss domicile). Recognition and execution may be refused if the decision is against principles of Swiss public policy, above all, if there was no due process, or if there was lis pendens. With regard to future developments, the Swiss Group doubts whether further harmonisation (which would be welcome, as a principle) can be achieved. In the event of harmonisation, a solution taking up the now existing Swiss-Lugano Convention rules would be recommendable, as well with regard to jurisdiction as to the applicable law. Résumé La Suisse possède des règles exhaustives en ce qui concerne les violations transfrontières de droits de propriété intellectuelle. La loi applicable est la loi fédérale sur le droit international privé (LDIP), du , complétée par la Convention de Lugano, du concernant la compétence judiciaire et l'exécution des décisions en matière civile et commerciale, qui correspond à la Convention de Bruxelles du sur le même sujet. Cette Convention a été remplacée (sauf pour le Danemark) par le Règlement n 44/2001 du Conseil, du , en vigueur depuis le Les tribunaux suisses sont compétents en matière civile en cas de violation de droit de propriété intellectuelle à l'étranger, si la Suisse constitue le domicile ou le lieu de résidence habituelle du défendeur (si ce dernier n'a nulle part de domicile ni en Suisse ni à l'étranger) ou si la Suisse constitue le lieu où la protection est invoquée (c'est-à-dire si un droit suisse de propriété intellectuelle a été violé). La Convention de Lugano étend la compétence au tribunal du lieu où l'acte illicite a été commis ou bien où il déploie ses efforts. La compétence englobe à la fois les mesures provisionnelles et les décisions au fond. En matière pénale, la compétence helvétique est limitée aux actes commis pour ou contre des citoyens suisses et aux cas où la compétence découle d'une convention internationale. La loi applicable aux violations transfrontières est la loi du pays pour lequel la protection du droit est revendiquée, y compris toutes ses dispositions de droit matériel. Le tribunal peut mettre à la charge des parties l'établissement du contenu du droit étranger. Les jugements étrangers concernant la violation de droits de propriété intellectuelle sont reconnus et exécutés en Suisse, si la décision a été rendue dans l'etat du domicile du défendeur ou par les tribunaux de l'etat pour lequel la protection a été revendiquée (si le défendeur n'est pas domicilié en Suisse). La reconnaissance et l'exécution peuvent être refusées si la décision viole les principes de l'ordre public suisse, en particulier, si la partie défenderesse n'a pas pu faire valoir ses moyens ou s'il y a litispendance. En ce qui concerne les développement futurs, le Groupe suisse se demande si une harmonisation plus poussée (qui serait la bienvenue, en soi) peut être réalisée. En cas d'harmonisation, la solution consistant à reprendre les règles de la loi suisse de droit international privé et de la Convention actuelle de Lugano serait adéquate, tant en ce qui concerne la compétence que le droit applicable. 9

10 Zusammenfassung Die Schweiz verfügt über umfassende Normen betreffend die grenzüberschreitende Verletzung von Immaterialgüterrechten. Anwendbar ist das schweizerische Bundesgesetz über das Internationale Privatrecht, ergänzt durch das Lugano Übereinkommen vom 16. September 1988 über die gerichtliche Zuständigkeit und die Vollstreckung gerichtlicher Entscheidungen in Zivilund Handelssachen, welches dem Brüsseler Abkommen vom 27. September 1968 zum selben Thema entspricht und als völkerrechtlicher Vertrag dem nationalen Recht vorgeht. Schweizerische Gerichte sind zuständig für Zivilklagen betreffend die Verletzung von Immaterialgüterrechten im Ausland, falls der Beklagte seinen Wohnsitz oder, sofern er keinen Wohnsitz hat (weder in der Schweiz noch anderswo) gewöhnlichen Aufenthalt in der Schweiz hat. Fehlt ein solcher, so sind die schweizerischen Gerichte am Ort zuständig, wo der Schutz beansprucht wird (d.h. wo ein schweizerisches Immaterialgüterrecht verletzt wird). Gemäss Lugano Übereinkommen sind zudem die Gerichte am Handlungs- oder Erfolgsort zuständig. Obige Zuständigkeitsregeln gelten sowohl für das Hauptsachenverfahren als auch für den Erlass einstweiliger Verfügungen. In strafrechtlichen Fällen besteht eine schweizerische Gerichtsbarkeit für im Ausland begangene Straftaten nur, wenn die Tat gegen einen Schweizer oder durch einen Schweizer begangen wurde oder wenn die Schweiz durch ein internationales Übereinkommen zur Strafverfolgung verpflichtet ist. In grenzüberschreitenden Verletzungsfällen ist das Recht des jeweiligen Staates anwendbar, für den der Schutz der Immaterialgüter beansprucht wird, einschliesslich all seiner materiellrechtlichen Bestimmungen. Bei der Feststellung des Inhalts des anzuwendenden ausländischen Rechts kann das Gericht die Mitwirkung der Parteien verlangen. Ausländische Entscheidungen betreffend Immaterialgüterrechte werden in der Schweiz anerkannt und vollstreckt, wenn sie im Staat ergangen sind, in dem der Beklagte seinen Wohnsitz hatte, oder in dem Staat, für den der Schutz der Immaterialgüterrechte beansprucht wurde (sofern der Beklagte keinen Wohnsitz in der Schweiz hat). Anerkennung und Vollstreckung können nur verweigert werden, wenn die Entscheidung mit dem schweizerischen Ordre Public offensichtlich unvereinbar wäre, insbesondre wenn wesentliche Verfahrensgrundsätze verletzt wurden oder Rechtshängigkeit bestand. Bezüglich zukünftiger Entwicklungen bezweifelt die schweizerische Gruppe, ob eine Harmonisierung (die prinzipiell begrüssenswert wäre) erreicht werden kann. Im Falle einer Harmonisierung wäre eine Lösung gemäss den Regeln des bestehenden Lugano Übereinkommens sowohl bezüglich der Zuständigkeit als auch des anwendbaren Rechts empfehlenswert. 10