If you do use the blog for research or database purposes, citation would be appreciated, to the blog as a whole and /or to specific blog posts. Many have suggested I should turn the blog into a paid for, subscription service however I have resisted doing so. Proper reference to how the blog is useful to its readers, will help keeping this so.
When I flagged the hard Brexit in judicial cooperation, I also referred to the one exception to that, which is the embryonic judicial co-operation on intellectual property rights. In Praesidiad Holding BVBA & Anor v Zaun Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 591 these provisions are put to the test. The judgment dismissed the appeal against the first instance judgment of Zacaroli J in Praesidiad Holding BVBA & Anor v Zaun Ltd [2024] EWHC 1549 (Pat).
In accordance with Article 85(5) of the EU’s Community Design Regulation, proceedings before the EU Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) have res judicata effect. In the case at issue, Betafence had initiated an infringement action in March 2018 in the English courts. Zaun’s response was to seek a declaration of invalidity at EUIPO). In October 2018, by consent, the Infringement Action was stayed pending final determination of the Invalidity Action. At that time, the terms on which the UK would depart from the EU had not been established. The consent order contained a liberty to apply to lift the stay in the event that the departure from the EU impacted on the position with the regard to the RCD, the Invalidity Action or the Infringement Action.
The EUIPO Invalidity Division on 19 July 2019 rejected each of Zaun’s arguments and found that the design was valid. Zaun’s appeal succeeded before the EUIPO Board of Appeal on 2 March 2021 however that decision was then overturned by the General Court of the EU on 19 October 2022. Permission to appeal to the CJEU was refused on 17 April 2023. On 12 June 2023, the Board of Appeal of the EUIPO then issued a confirmatory decision, upholding the validity of the design and finally disposing of all of the invalidity challenges.
Betafence contend that Zaun is precluded from challenging the validity of relevant Community designs, either because Article 86(5) of the Community Designs Regulation still applies (as a result of the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement, which have direct effect in English law), or pursuant to the English law principles of res judicata.
Zaun, on the other hand, contends that Article 86(5) has been expressly – or at least implicitly – disapplied by UK amendments made to the Registered Designs Act 1949 (“RDA 1949”), in respect of proceedings that were pending at ‘IP Completion Day’ (Implementation Period completion day: 11 PM on 31 December 2020, the end of the UK’s transition period following EU withdrawal from the EU). Their view is that there is accordingly no statutory res judicata that would preclude the counterclaim in the infringement action.
Moreover, Zaun contends that the English law principles of res judicata and abuse of process do not apply because: (1) the EUIPO is not a court of competent jurisdiction; or, if that is wrong, (2) the amendments made to the RDA 1949 should be interpreted as disapplying the doctrines of res judicata and/or Henderson v Henderson abuse of process. It further contends that there is no question of a decision of the EUIPO giving rise to any estoppel or abuse of process in relation to the Re-registered Design, because it is a newly-created UK right.
The judge held that Zaun was precluded from challenging the validity of the designs because Zaun had already unsuccessfully challenged the validity of the RCD before EUIP) and on appeal therefrom to the General Court of the European Union. Zaun contend in short that the effect of the relevant Brexit legislation is that it is able to challenge the validity of the designs in these proceedings.
[26] Title VI of the UK-EU Withdrawal Agreement is headed “Ongoing judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters”. Article 67(1) provides that:
“In the United Kingdom, as well as in the Member States in situations involving the United Kingdom, in respect of legal proceedings instituted before the end of the transition period and in respect of proceedings or actions that are related to such legal proceedings pursuant to Articles 29, 30 and 31 of [the Brussels I Regulation (Recast)], Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 [‘the New Brussels II Regulation’] or Articles 12 and 13 of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 [‘the Maintenance Regulation’], the following acts or provisions shall apply:
(a) the provisions regarding jurisdiction of [the Brussels I Regulation (Recast)];
(b) the provisions regarding jurisdiction of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 [the EU Trade Mark Regulation], of [the CD Regulation], of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 [‘the Community Plant Variety Rights Regulation’], of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council [‘the General Data Protection Regulation’] and of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [‘the Posted Workers Directive’];
(c) the provisions of [the New Brussels II Regulation] regarding jurisdiction;
(d) the provisions of [the Maintenance Regulation] regarding jurisdiction.”
[36] Arnold LJ summarises the res judicata issues of relevance:
There was no dispute before either the judge or this Court as to the applicable principles concerning res judicata and abuse of process, which were explained by Lord Sumption in Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd [2013] UKSC 46, [2014] AC 160. In brief summary, there are three principles which are potentially relevant. First, cause of action estoppel, which is the principle that once a cause of action has been held to exist or not to exist, that determination cannot be challenged by either party in subsequent proceedings. Secondly, issue estoppel, which is the principle that, in general, the determination of an issue which is necessary to the decision in earlier proceedings is binding on the parties in later proceedings. Thirdly, the principle derived from Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100, which precludes a party from raising in later proceedings points that were not, but could and should have been, raised in earlier proceedings, which is a species of abuse of process.
[39] summarises the common ground on ‘proceedings pending’:
Claimants accept that, despite Brexit, Zaun was able (subject to the objections raised by the Claimants’ application) to bring its counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity of the RCD in August 2023 because the counterclaim was made in proceedings which were pending as at 31 December 2020. Since the Claimants accept this, it is not strictly necessary to determine which legislative provision(s) enabled Zaun to bring that counterclaim. It is nevertheless pertinent to consider this question, because it provides the starting point for the issues which arise on the appeal. It is clear that the proceedings are “pending proceedings” as defined in paragraph 9(1) of the Schedule 1A to the 1949 Act. During the course of argument counsel agreed that it followed from paragraph 9(2), which provides that, with certain exceptions, the provisions in Title IX of the CD Regulation shall continue to apply to pending proceedings as if the UK were still a Member State, that Zaun was able to bring its counterclaim pursuant to Article 81(d) of the CD Regulation. By virtue of Article 88(1) the applicable law is (the relevant provisions of) the CD Regulation. Although paragraph 9(2) is expressed to be subject to paragraph 9(3) and 9(4), nothing in those subparagraphs prevents Zaun from bringing such a counterclaim. It was also agreed that the same result could if necessary be arrived at via section 7A of the 2020 Act and Article 67(1) of the Withdrawal Agreement: cf. Simon v Taché [2022] EWHC 1674 (Comm) at [66]-[75] (HHJ Cawson QC sitting as Judge of the High Court).
[48] the first instance judge’s views are summarised:
The judge held that Zaun was precluded from bringing its counterclaim in respect of the RCD by Article 86(5), which applied by virtue of section 7A of the 2020 Act and Article 67(1) of the Withdrawal Agreement for two alternative reasons. The first was that the provisions of Title IX of the CD Regulation as a whole were the provisions regarding jurisdiction. The second was that Article 86(5) was a provision regarding jurisdiction. The judge held that, irrespective of Article 86(5), Zaun was precluded from bringing its counterclaim in respect of the RCD by res judicata or abuse of process. Finally, he held that the same conclusions applied to Zaun’s counterclaim in respect of the UKRRD.
[57] reference is made to ia a linguistic argument to hold on the meaning of ‘jurisdiction’:
It is not necessary to decide whether the judge was right about Title IX as a whole, because in my judgment he was right about Article 86(5). The primary definition of “jurisdiction” in Jowett’s Dictionary of English Law (6th ed) is “legal authority; extent of power”, referring in particular to the authority or power of a court. A synonym for jurisdiction in this sense is “competence”. I do not think that this is a purely English conception of the notion. Indeed, the French text of Article 67(1) uses the word “compétence” where the English has “jurisdiction”. In the conflict of laws (private international law) context, it is common to distinguish between “personal jurisdiction”, meaning the persons in relation to whom the court is competent to adjudicate, and “subject matter jurisdiction”, meaning the kinds of question which the court is competent to adjudicate.
[58] Zaun argue that Article 86(5) does not provide for a restriction on jurisdiction, but rather a procedural bar analogous to limitation or a substantive defence analogous to an estoppel. Jurisdiction, it says, is solely about which court or tribunal should decide an issue. Arnold LJ disagrees: [59]:
Article 86(5) plainly does not provide for a substantive defence: it is not located in any of the Titles of the CD Regulation dealing with substantive law, but in Title IX dealing with “jurisdiction and procedure”; and it does not provide that the defendant to the counterclaim has a defence, but says that “[n]o counterclaim … may be made”. I accept that it could be described as a procedural bar, but in my judgment it is aptly characterised as a provision regarding jurisdiction because it qualifies the subject matter jurisdiction, or competence, of Community design courts pursuant to Article 81(d). Furthermore, analogies with English provisions such as those governing limitation are dangerous because, as counsel for Zaun accepted, Article 86(5) must be given an autonomous interpretation as a matter of European law. As for determining which court or tribunal should decide an issue, that involves an allocation of jurisdiction, that is to say, the authority or power to decide the issue.
[60] references pro inspiratio to Brussels Ia’s enforcement provisions are rejected as irrelevant, and [61] references to UK statutory law, too, for “the issue is one of interpretation of Article 86(5), which cannot be affected by the English legislation.” [62] ff additional support is found in Trademark litigation, specifically the Supreme Court in Sky plc v SkyKick UK Ltd [2024] UKSC 36 with [66] specific reference to Lord Reed in that case:
“511. … it would have been highly unfortunate if the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU had been other than on terms which enabled pending legal proceedings to be decided on the basis of the pre-existing law. It is a basic principle of legal certainty, and an aspect of the rule of law, that the legal consequences of events are, in general, determined in accordance with the law in force at the time of those events, rather than a different law introduced at a later date. Proprietors of trade marks who had brought infringement proceedings in designated United Kingdom courts before the end of the transition period had accrued causes of action under the EU Trade Mark Regulation (to which defendants with grounds for challenging the validity of the marks in question had a counterclaim). Whether the proceedings were concluded before the end of the transition period could depend on wide variety of factors, including, in the present case, the fact that there was a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union, and an appeal to this court. It would be incompatible with the values I have mentioned if the time taken by the judicial process were to have the effect of depriving the parties of the remedy to which they were entitled. It would also mean that identical cases would be decided differently, depending on the vicissitudes of litigation, and on whether they happened to be brought in the courts of this country or in the courts of the remaining EU member states.
512. As one would expect, one of the objectives of the Withdrawal Agreement was to avoid problems of that kind. That is not only implicit in its provisions, as I have explained, but is also reflected in its preamble, which stresses ‘that the objective of this Agreement is to ensure an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union and Euratom’, and recites that the parties are resolved to do so ‘through various separation provisions aiming to prevent disruption and to provide legal certainty to citizens and economic operators as well as to judicial and administrative authorities in the Union and in the United Kingdom’.”
[73] the res judicata and abuse of process arguments are discussed, with reference [72] specifically to the “UKRRD was aptly described by counsel for Zaun as a clone of the RCD”.
the principles of res judicata and abuse of process apply to preclude Zaun re-litigating the validity of the UKRRD. More specifically, I consider that Zaun’s counterclaim is precluded by issue estoppel. As explained above, Zaun relies upon the same grounds of invalidity with respect to the UKRRD, albeit arising under the 1949 Act rather than under the CD Regulation, as it does in relation to the RCD. Zaun accepts that the differences in the prior designs being relied upon and in its argument with respect to the question of functionality do not prevent the application of issue estoppel. Thus the issues are the same, and Zaun is prevented by issue estoppel from re-litigating them before the High Court. (If Zaun had relied upon the difference in the prior designs, then there might well not have been an issue estoppel with respect to novelty and overall impression, but there would probably have been an objection based on Henderson v Henderson. As it is, it is not necessary to consider those questions.)
An interesting judgment on the interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement, the continuing impact of the EU’s Community Design Regulation and its UK counterpart.
Geert.
https://x.com/GAVClaw/status/1921107249872752866
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/geert-van-calster-60abab9_brexit-claxon-articles-541b-and-article-activity-7326873198984142849-K6II?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAAHHS6oB7DOA8jUedLLahLDL6cEwepyHYwA