UPC_CFI_2255/2025

Decisions and documents (1)

• 2026-04-07preliminary injunction

  Applicant:

  Dyson Technology Limited

  Defendants:

  Cellcom Ltd.; DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED; Dreame Technology AB; Dreame Technology Netherlands B.V; Teqphone GmbH

  dismissed

  1. The UPC is considered to be a court of member state just like the national EU Member State courts (Art. 71a BR), with a territory encompassing all Contracting Member States. Hence, the UPC has international jurisdiction under Art. 4 BR for every defendant, who is based or domiciled within any Contracting Member State of the UPCA. 2. Legal requirements that are not designed to ensure a certain level of protection within the UK, or at least Northern Ireland as a part of the UK, but to protect from an abstract risk in case the goods end up in the EU, are not a reasonably foreseeable basis to open jurisdiction based on the principle of co-defendants under Art. 8 BR. 3. The fact, that a party is the Authorized Representative for a non-EU based manufacturer in Northern Ireland, is – as far as the evidence shows – not a sufficient basis for qualifying this party being a joint tortfeasor with the actual importer or an intermediary in the meaning of the English law (cf. Art. 62 and 63 (1) UPCA). 4. As pursuant to Art. 1 (2) and (3) of the Guidelines, the ceilings on recoverable costs apply to the costs of representation at each instance of the proceedings, irrespective of the number of parties, it follows that in a split cost decision according to Art. 69(2) UPCA the costs should be split proportionally, not per party.

  Judge: Sabine Klepsch • Panel: Stefan Johansson, Sabine Klepsch, Dr. Stefan Schilling🔒 Unlock Official PDF