2025-07-23 - LD Mannheim - Fujifilm v. Kodak - UPC_CFI_365/2023
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_365/2023
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Application Order
- Parteien:
- Fujifilm v. Kodak
Kernaussage: 1.
2025-07-23 - LD Mannheim - Fujifilm
v.
Kodak - UPC_CFI_365/2023
1. Neither R. 354.3 or .4 RoP explicitly call for a warning. Within the system of the RoP of the UPC R. 118.8 RoP already mandates that the defendant is warned by the claimant, who has to fulfil the prerequisites contained therein prior to execution.
2. A translation is only necessary where the enforcement is not being carried out by the UPC itself through imposing penalties under R. 354 RoP but through the national enforcement authorities.
3. On confidentiality requests according to R 262A RoP in the context of enforcement proceedings.
The Mannheim Local Division ordered a set of penalty payments (lump-sum for the past, daily - with increasements - for the future) against a Defendant that did not comply with an infringement decision. The Court went into detail on the enforcement requirements, stating that a warning was not required under UPC law (in contrast to Germany, for example) and neither is a translation. The Court assessed the different obligations and the time periods set by the Claimant, coming to the conclusion that they were adequate and it was the Defendant who failed to comply, justifying coercive measures.
Stichwörter
confidentialty, enforcement, translations