Forum Selection Clauses and Cruise Ship Contracts

On August 19, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued its latest decision on foreign forum selection clauses in cruise ship contracts.  The case was Turner v. Costa Crociere S.P.A.  The plaintiff was an American cruise ship passenger, Paul Turner, who brought a class action in federal district court in Florida alleging that the cruise line’s “negligence contributed to an outbreak of COVID-19 aboard the Costa Luminosa during his transatlantic voyage beginning on March 5, 2020.”

The cruise line moved to dismiss the case on the basis of a forum selection clause in the ticket mandating that all disputes be resolved by a court in Genoa, Italy. The contract also contained a choice-of-law clause selecting Italian law. By way of background, it is important to note that (1) the parent company for the cruise line was headquartered in Italy, (2) its operating subsidiary was headquartered in Florida, (3) the cruise was to begin in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and (4) the cruise was to terminate in the Canary Islands.

EPO and EAPO Regulations: A new reform of the Luxembourgish Code of Civil Procedure

Carlos Santaló Goris, Researcher at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law and Ph.D. candidate at the University of Luxembourg, offers a summary and a compelling analysis of the Luxemburgish domestic legislation regarding the EPO and EAPO Regulations.

On 23 July 2021, a new legislative reform of the Luxembourgish Code of Civil Procedure (“NCPC”), entered into force amending, among other articles, those concerning Regulation No 1896/2006, establishing a European Payment Order (“EPO Regulation”) and Regulation No 655/2014, establishing a European Account Preservation Order (“EAPO Regulation”).

The EPO and the EAPO Regulations embody, respectively, the first and third European uniform civil procedures. While the EPO, as its name indicates, is a payment order, the EAPO is a provisional measure that allows temporary freezing of the funds in the debtor’s bank accounts. Although they are often referred to as uniform procedures, both leave numerous elements to the discretion of the Member States’ national laws.

Leave to Issue and Serve Originating Process Outside Jurisdiction Versus Substituted Service: A Distinction with a Difference

Witten by Orji A Uka (Senior Associate at ALP NG & Co) and Damilola Alabi (Associate at ALP NG & Co)


The issuance and service of an originating process are fundamental issues that afford or rob a court of jurisdiction to adjudicate over a matter. This is because it is settled law that the proceedings and judgment of a court which lacks jurisdiction result in a nullity[1]. Yet, despite the necessity of ensuring that the issuance and service of an originating process comply with the various State High Court Civil Procedure Rules or Federal High Court Civil Procedure Rules (“the relevant court rules”) or the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act, legal practitioners and sometimes judges commonly conflate the issuance and service of court process on defendants outside jurisdiction with the concept of service of court process by substituted means on defendants within the jurisdiction[2]. This paper set outs the differences between both commonly confused principles with the aim of providing clarity to its readers and contributing to the body of knowledge on this fundamental aspect of the Nigerian adjectival law.

Territorial Jurisdiction of Courts in Nigeria


Karnataka High Court (India) Frames Comprehensive Guidelines to Ascertain ‘Passing Off’ in Intellectual Property Disputes Involving the Application of Indian Law

Vacating the interim injunction that was granted earlier this year to prevent CG Corp. Global – a Nepal-based company, registered in India from manufacturing and selling its instant noodles under the name of Wai Wai X-Press Noodles Majedar Masala in a passing-off action by ITC Ltd, the Karnataka High Court formulated detailed guidelines to ascertain the circumstances in which there will be a passing-off of a trademark and an infringement of copyright under Indian law.[1] The Karnataka High Court was exercising its appellate jurisdiction under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act 2015 (CCA) that authorizes the creation of commercial courts in India. These courts are equally competent to adjudicate domestic and international disputes on matters that fall within the purview of the Act. The scope of the legislation is vast and includes, inter alia, disputes concerning intellectual property rights such as trademarks, copyright, patents, designs or geographical indications – which will be considered of a commercial nature if the value of the subject matter is more than INR 3,00,000. The Act confers jurisdiction over the Commercial Division of the High Courts – as a court of the first instance – whenever the dispute arises within the local limits of Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras or Himachal Pradesh. In all other States of India, the commercial courts created at the district level will be competent to adjudicate such matters. The legislation has been promulgated to promote trade and commerce in India by fast-tracking the settlement of such disputes. In matters of intellectual property such as these, the Act confers the Commercial Court or the Commercial Division of the High Court in some states with the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters, which were initially within the domain of the District Courts.

The Commercial Appellate Division of the Karnataka High Court was faced with the predicament of whether the defendant, CG Corp, had damaged ITC’s goodwill and reputation by incorporating a similar colour scheme of red and orange in packaging its Wai Wai X-Press Noodles Majedar Masala. As a result, ITC claimed that the defendant’s product was deceptively similar to its Sunfeast Yipee! Magic Masala Noodles and, thus, CG Corp’s act constituted passing-off and an infringement of ITC’s copyright under Indian law.

Rejecting ITC’s contentions, the court formulated a two-pronged formula to ascertain the circumstances in which a defendant could be considered to have passed off a product as that of the claimant – to have violated the latter’s registered trademark. In doing so, the court placed emphasis on the position under English law as emphasized in Payton v Snelling,[2] Lampard; Reckitt & Colman v Borden;[3] and Pasquali Cigarette Co Ltd v Diaconicolas & Capsopolus.[4]

Out Now! Comprehensive commentary on Indian Private International Law by Stellina Jolly and Saloni Khanderia

Published by Hart/Bloomsbury as a part of their Asia-Private International Law Series, this provides an authoritative account of the evolution and application of private international law principles in India in civil, commercial and family matters. Through a structured evaluation of the legislative and judicial decisions, the authors examine the private international law in the Republic and whether it conforms to international standards and best practices as adopted in major jurisdictions such as the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, India’s BRICS partners – Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa and other common law systems such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Nepal.

CJEU on provisional/protective measures requested against a public authority (potentially and/or allegedly enjoying some form of immunity) in the case TOTO, C-581/20

Back in September, AG Rantos presented his Opinion in the case TOTO, C-581/20. As reported previously, at the request of the Court, the Opinion confined itself solely to the second preliminary question on the interpretation of Article 35 of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

In its judgment delivered today, the Court addresses all three preliminary questions of the referring court. These questions concern the concept of “civil and commercial matters” in the sense of Article 1(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation (first preliminary question), subsequent application for provision/protective measures lodged before a court not having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter (second preliminary question) and EU law- or purely national law- dependent modalities for ordering such measures (third preliminary question).