Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
When does the protection of intellectual property override the protection of personal data? Sarah Hadland, director and principal at S.H. & Associates explains how the Coty Germany GmbH v Stadtsparkasse Magdeburg case achieved a fine balance between these two fundamental rights. Coty Germany GmbH v Stadtsparkasse Magdeburg: C-580/13
This case concerned the balance of rights between the IP Enforcement Directive 2004/48/EC and banking secrecy laws.
Coty Germany (Coty) owns a Community trade mark for DAVIDOFF HOT WATER, registered for perfumery and part of its DAVIDOFF portfolio of trade marks. In 2011, Coty purchased on the internet counterfeit perfume bearing its trade mark. The seller had provided its bank details and Coty made the payment to that account, at Stadtsparkasse Magdeburg bank. Coty then contacted the bank and, under para 19(2) of Gesetz über den Schutz von Marken und sonstigen Kennzeichen (Markengesetz—MarkenG) (Law on the Protection of Trademarks and other distinguishing marks) 1994, requested the name and address of the account holder so that it could pursue the seller of the counterfeit product. The bank refused to disclose its client’s details, invoking banking secrecy rules.
Coty launched a successful action in the Regional Court and the matter was appealed up to the Federal Court of Justice.
The question referred to the CJEU was whether the IP Enforcement Directive, which protects intellectual property rights, took precedence over national banking secrecy laws protecting personal data, in a situation where a client is suspected of dealing in counterfeit goods.
The CJEU ruled that Germany’s banking secrecy laws, which provide banks with the ability to apply a blanket refusal to disclose clients’ confidential information, are unlawful on the basis that those laws:
The Coty decision does not provide brand owners with a carte blanche to obtain details of banking customers—however, it does state that national laws must strike a fair balance between the right to privacy enjoyed by banking customers and the need to ensure that those carrying out unlawful activities are not unfairly sheltered.
UK banks can expect this case to be invoked in a similar action in the UK. For example, a brand owner might identify a seller of counterfeit goods on the internet and, having made a trap purchase and obtained the seller’s bank details, the brand owner may wish to be able to serve proceedings on that seller and approach the seller’s bank for their client’s name and address.
This case seeks to balance the obligation of institutions, such as banks to protect the personal data of their customers and the right to information of brand owners in the context of proceedings to protect their property.
It is interesting to consider this ruling in the context of existing legislation designed to prevent those carrying out unlawful activities from hiding behind client confidentiality and other protective rules. For example, the rules relating to money laundering impose on institutions and practitioners strict provisions regarding any client they may suspect of carrying out unlawful activity, where that client would otherwise be protected by client confidentiality rules.
The Coty decision provides another tool in the armoury against infringers, and is likely to be invoked with regard to all conflicting legislation such as data protection laws, and not just banking secrecy laws.
Interviewed by Stephanie Boyer.
This article is republished with kind permission of WIPIT’s sister site, Lexis®PSL IP & IT. For a free trial click here.
0330 161 1234