Back in July of this year I blogged on the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Coty Germany GmbH v Stadtsparkasse Magdeburg (C-580/13). In this decision the CJEU held that
Back in July of this year I blogged on the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Coty Germany GmbH v Stadtsparkasse Magdeburg (C-580/13). In this decision the CJEU held that national legislation allowing, in an unlimited and unconditional manner, a banking institution to invoke banking secrecy in order to refuse to provide information on the name and address of an account holder implicated in IP infringement, is not compatible with the provisions of Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (the IP Enforcement Directive).
The case was referred back to the German Bundesgerichtshof to determine whether there were "any other means or other remedies which would allow the competent judicial authorities to order that the necessary information concerning the identity of persons who are covered by article 8(1) of the [IP Enforcement Directive] be provided, in view of the specific circumstances of each case".
The Bundesgerichtshof has now issued its decision in this matter, ruling that there is indeed scope under German law to oblige the bank to disclose the identity of the account holder. This means that German law as it stands is compatible with the IP Enforcement Directive. This is also good news for intellectual property rights holders as, in striking the balance between the trade mark owner's right to protection of its intellectual property on the one side and the right to protect personal data of the account holder/ the bank's right to professional freedom on the other, the Bundesgerichtshof has leaned towards the side of intellectual property protection.
The case was referred back to the German Bundesgerichtshof to determine whether there were "any other means or other remedies which would allow the competent judicial authorities to order that the necessary information concerning the identity of persons who are covered by article 8(1) of the [IP Enforcement Directive] be provided, in view of the specific circumstances of each case".
The Bundesgerichtshof has now issued its decision in this matter, ruling that there is indeed scope under German law to oblige the bank to disclose the identity of the account holder. This means that German law as it stands is compatible with the IP Enforcement Directive. This is also good news for intellectual property rights holders as, in striking the balance between the trade mark owner's right to protection of its intellectual property on the one side and the right to protect personal data of the account holder/ the bank's right to professional freedom on the other, the Bundesgerichtshof has leaned towards the side of intellectual property protection.