Articles

Find my address… if you can: Constantin Film Verleih v. Youtube and Google

Find my address… if you can : Constantin Film Verleih v. Youtube and

Find my address… if you can: Constantin Film Verleih v. Youtube and Google

11.08.2020 EU law

On 9 July 2020, the CJEU clarified the scope of the right of information in the context of IP rights infringement proceedings.

On 9 July 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) clarified the scope of the right of information in the context of IP rights infringement proceedings (Case C-264/19), which is enshrined in Article 8 of Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (the “Directive”).

Constantin Film Verleih – i.e., the applicant – has exclusive exploitation rights in respect of cinematographic works such as Parker and Scary Movie 5. Those works were uploaded on Youtube in infringement of the applicant's rights. Under Art. 8 of the Directive, Constantin Film Verleih demands that Youtube and Google (the parent company of Youtube) provide it with a set of information on users who have uploaded those works. Having obtained only fictitious user names, it requests additional information, such as e-mail addresses, mobile telephone numbers and IP addresses.

Pursuant to Art. 8 of the Directive, judicial authorities may order information from the infringer (and/or other person, such as Youtube and Google) “on the origin and distribution networks of the goods or services which infringe an intellectual property right”. The list of information includes, inter alia, “the names and addresses of producers, manufacturers, distributors, suppliers and other previous holders of the goods or services, as well as recipient wholesalers and retailers” (Art. 8(2)(a)). The questions referred for a preliminary ruling concern the meaning of the concept “addresses”.

According to the CJEU, this term is an independent concept of Union law (§ 28). Because it is not defined by Union law, its scope and meaning must then be determined “in accordance with its usual meaning in everyday language” (§ 29). The Court rules that the usual meaning refers only to the postal address, “that is to say, the place of a given person’s permanent address or habitual residence” (§ 30). The concept “address” does therefore not refer to e-mail addresses, telephone numbers or IP addresses (§ 30). As a result, Youtube is not obliged to transfer detailed personal data from uploaders who have infringed copyright.

However, the CJEU seems to be indirectly admitting that its interpretation may be too strict. In the present case, Constantin Film Verleih only obtained fictitious names, as Youtube does not check identities and does not ask for postal addresses when registering users wishing to upload content. The interpretation given by the CJEU does thus not allow the applicant to ensure the effective exercise of its intellectual property rights (that is however the objective of the Directive) by identifying the infringers. The Court then points out that the Directive provides for minimum harmonisation (§ 36) and that the Member States are free to lay down the possibility of ordering the communication of e-mail addresses, telephone numbers or IP addresses in their national legal framework (§ 39).

In its ruling, the CJEU follows the opinion of the Advocate General (AG) delivered on 2 April 2020, who justified his literal interpretation on the definition of the term “address” given by the Académie française, i.e. “the designation of the place where you can reach someone”. The Court could, however, have opted for a more flexible interpretation, more suited to today's realities. Indeed, the Académie française dictionary adds another meaning that is not included in the AG’s opinion: an address is also, by extension, an “indicative of the location of information stored in a computer”. Moreover, next to the definition of address as postal address, the Cambridge Dictionary also defines address as “a series of letters and symbols that tell you where to find something on the internet or show where an email is sent to”.

In short, it is on the one hand regrettable that the CJEU has adopted a rather conservative view, which is hard to reconcile with current and future technologies. On the other hand, this ruling may be justified by the desire not to add yet another layer of obligations on platforms, which have recently been heavily targeted by the CJEU itself and the European legislator.

 

By Edouard Cruysmans, Cyril Fischer and Erik Valgaeren

 

1 See for instance the InfoSoc directive 2019/790 (Art. 17), the P2B Regulation 2019/1150, the Piesczek v Facebook case law of the CJEU (C-18/18).

 

Team

Related news

06.05.2021 EU law
Abuse of economic dependence: lessons drawn from the first judgments

Short Reads - On 22 August 2020, the ban on abuse of economic dependence was implemented in Belgium (Article IV.2/1 of the Code of Economic Law). Now that almost a year has passed and the first judgments have been rendered, we assess what first lessons can be drawn from these judgments. The rulings show that the ban is regularly relied upon in court and has lowered the hurdle for plaintiffs to make their case.

Read more

04.05.2021 NL law
Participatie en privacyregels: hoe te combineren onder de Omgevingswet?

Short Reads - In het stelsel van de Omgevingswet (Ow) is een belangrijke rol bedacht voor participatie bij de totstandkoming van besluiten. Het beoogde resultaat: tijdig belangen, meningen en creativiteit op tafel krijgen en daarmee een groter draagvlak en kwalitatief betere besluitvorming bereiken. Door een grotere betrokkenheid van meer personen gaan overheden en initiatiefnemers ook meer persoonsgegevens verwerken. Dit brengt privacyrisico’s met zich mee. Wat regelt de Ow op het gebied van privacy, de verwerking van persoonsgegevens en datagebruik?

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Slovak Telekom: ECJ on essentials of the ‘essential facilities’ doctrine

Short Reads - Only dominant companies with a “genuinely tight grip” on the market can be forced to grant rivals access to their infrastructure. According to the ECJ’s rulings in Slovak Telekom and Deutsche Telekom, it is only in this scenario that the question of indispensability of the access for rivals comes into play. In the assessment of practices other than access refusal, indispensability may be indicative of a potential abuse of a dominant position, but is not a required condition.

Read more

01.04.2021 NL law
Pay-for-delay saga ends with nothing new; but pharma quest continues

Short Reads - On 25 March 2021, the ECJ ended the Lundbeck pay-for-delay saga by dismissing the appeals from Lundbeck and five generic manufacturers against a European Commission ‘pay-for-delay’ decision. Following its recent Paroxetine judgment, the ECJ found that Lundbeck’s process patents did not preclude generic companies being viewed as potential competitors, particularly since the patents did not represent an insurmountable barrier to entry. In addition, the patent settlement agreements constituted infringements "by object".

Read more