2026-04-29 - LD Helsinki - Aim Sport Development v. Supponor - ACT_551054/2023

ENGLISH: If a provisional measures applicaton has become devoid of purpose and hence there is no longer need to adjudicate on it, the Court shall dispose of it based on R. 360 RoP and on the request of the par3es the Court shall make a cost decision and can take into account the outcome of the case on the merits if that is known.

The Helsinki LD disposed of AIM Sport's provisional measures application under R. 360 RoP applied mutatis mutandis, accepting the parties' joint position that the PI had become devoid of purpose after the original UEFA bidding window passed during the appeal of the LD's earlier jurisdiction dismissal. On the contested cost question, the LD followed Hamburg LD's Fives v REEL approach: the end result of the PI proceedings defines cost allocation, and because the parallel infringement action UPC_CFI_214/2023 was dismissed the same day, AIM Sport bears TGI's first-instance PI costs up to the €800,000 ceiling derived from Section 5b of the AC Scale. Following CoA Juul v NJOY, AIM Sport is shielded from TGI's CoA costs because AIM Sport had succeeded on appeal of the earlier jurisdiction decision. The order also confirms that PI costs are compensated separately from the merits costs (CoA Barco v Yealink; Sumi Agro v Syngenta) and that R. 363.2 RoP makes the order a final decision with a two-month appeal window.