West Tankers, and Worldwide Freezing Orders

/in /by
image_pdfimage_print

There are two casenotes in the new issue of the Cambridge Law Journal worthy of mention. Firstly, Richard Fentiman (Cambridge) has written on “Arbitration and the Brussels Regulation” – discussing the recent House of Lords decision (and reference to the ECJ) in West Tankers Inc v. RAS – Ras Riunione di Sicurata SpA [2007] UKHL 4. The introduction reads:

WHEN, if at all, may English courts restrain claimants from suing in other Member States? The European Court of Justice has declared such relief to be inconsistent with the principle of mutual trust embodied in Regulation 44/2201, governing jurisdiction in national courts: Case C-281/02 Turner v. Grovit [2004] ECR I – 3565. But when does the Regulation engage, so that the ban imposed in Turner applies? Perhaps it does so whenever the foreign proceedings are within the Regulation’s material scope. If so, civil proceedings in the courts of Member States can never be restrained. Alternatively, perhaps the Regulation only engages when it governs jurisdiction in both the foreign and the English proceedings. Judicial proceedings in other Member States could thus be restrained, provided relief is sought in English proceedings beyond the Regulation’s reach.

Louise Merrett (Cambridge) has written a note on “Worldwide Freezing Orders in Europe” (C.L.J. 2007, 66(3), 495-498). Here’s the abstract:

Examines the Court of Appeal decision in Banco Nacional de Comercio Exterior SNC v Empresa de Telecomunicationes de Cuba SA on whether the court had jurisdiction under Regulation 44/2001 Art.47 (Brussels Regulation) or the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 s.25 to grant a worldwide freezing order over the defendant’s assets where it was not connected to, nor resident in, England and the court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the proceedings.

Available to subscribers (both online and in print).

The Long-Arm of the USPTO: A Significant Decision (and a Significant Dissent) from the Fourth Circuit

/in /by
image_pdfimage_print

When panel issues a 16-page decision, and Judge James Harvie Wilkinson III writes a 20-page dissent, people seem to take notice. In Rosenruist-Gestao E servicos LDA v. Virgin Enterprises Ltd., No. 06-1588 (4th Cir., December 27, 2007), Judge Wilkinson sharply derided his colleagues in holding that:

“a foreign company that has no United States employees, locations or business activities must produce a designee to testify at a deposition in the Eastern District of Virginia so long as it has applied for a trademark registration with a government office located there. As a result, foreign witnesses can be compelled to travel to the United States and give in-person testimony at the behest of any litigant in a trademark dispute, . . . even though the PTO’s own procedures call for obtaining testimony from foreign companies through [the Hague Evidence Convention].”

This decision is, as Judge Wilkinson recognizes, “a first for any federal court,” and “problematic for many reasons.” Specifically:

It fails to properly apply the statute, 35 U.S.C. § 24, that is directly relevant to its decision, and it reaches a result that is bound to embroil foreign trademark applicants in lengthy, procedurally complex proceedings. It inverts longstanding canons of construction that seek to protect against international discord, and it disregards the views of the PTO whose proceedings 35 U.S.C. § 24 is designed to aid. In view of the statutory text (see Section I), interpretive canons, international relationships, and separation of powers concerns (II), and the PTO’s own framework (III), I firmly believe this subpoena must be quashed.

The decision can be obtained here. One cannot help but wonder whether the significance and recurrence of the issue doesnt warrant immediate Supreme Court review of the decision, even absent a clear split of circuit authority. Indeed, as Judge Wilkinson implicitly acknowledges, such a split may never occur; “the majority creates a standard that is in fact a national one: the PTO is located in the Eastern District of Virginia; applications for trademark registration are filed there; and subpoena enforcement will frequently be sought in that district. Indeed, for any foreign corporation without a preexisting United States presence, the majority’s decision will be controlling.”