APL_596007/2023

DIGITALLY OVERLAYING AN IMAGE WITH ANOTHER IMAGE

AppealsMain AppealCourt of AppealAppeal RoP220.1—

This case cites

Authorities cited within the decisions on file for this case.

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
83	jurisdiction	Binding	The term 'action' in Art. 83 UPCA refers not only to infringement and revocation actions, but to all actions mentioned in Art. 32 UPCA over which the UPC has jurisdiction.
32	jurisdiction	Binding	The term 'action' in Art. 83 UPCA refers not only to infringement and revocation actions, but to all actions mentioned in Art. 32 UPCA over which the UPC has jurisdiction.
83	jurisdiction	Binding	the sentence "Unless an action has already been brought before a national court" in Art. 83(4) UPCA must be understood to refer to an action brought before a national court during the transitional regime.

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
5.8	jurisdiction	Distinguished	Supponor has argued that its interpretation of the term 'action' in Art. 83 UPCA is confirmed by Rule 5.8 RoP, as it is clear from its wording that 'action' in this Rule must also be understood to include actions brought before a national court prior to the transitional period.
1.1	jurisdiction	Binding	in that situation, in accordance with R.1.1 RoP, the provision of the UPCA shall prevail.

Target	Legal point	Strength	Excerpt
Art. 31(2)(b) Vienna Convention	jurisdiction	Background	the Court of Appeal appreciates that the Rules of Procedure may be considered as an instrument related to the UPCA as meant in Art. 31 (2) lit (b) Vienna Convention.

Cited by

Subsequent UPC decisions citing this case.

Not yet cited in another decision in our corpus.