LUXEMBOURG Law and Practice Contributed by: Emmanuèle de Dampierre and Florentine Frias, Elvinger Hoss Prussen
quotations from the protected work if they are justified by the critical, polemical, educational, scientific or informative nature of the work in which the quotations are incorporated. How - ever, this exception will only apply if these short quotations: • are in line with good practice in this field; • are not profit-making; • are justified by the aim pursued; • do not prejudice the work or its exploitation; and • mention the name of the author and the title of the work reproduced or quoted if this infor - mation appears in the source. 9.3 Exhaustion A trade mark owner is not entitled to prohibit use of the mark for goods that have been put on the market in the EEA under that trade mark by the owner or with their consent, unless there are legitimate grounds for the owner to oppose further distribution of the goods. Luxembourg follows the doctrine of first sale regarding the distribution right granted to the holder of authors’ rights. The distribution right is exhausted within the EU once the holder of authors’ rights has consented to the first sale of the protected work (original or copies) within the EU.
• measures intended to prevent any imminent trade mark or authors’ rights infringement; • measures intended to forbid, on a provisional basis, the continuation of the alleged infringe - ment acts; • that the continuation of the alleged infringe - ment acts be made subject to the lodging of guarantees intended to ensure the compen - sation of the claimant; • the seizure of the goods suspected of infring - ing an IP right, so as to prevent their entry into the channels of commerce; or • the freezing of bank accounts (if additional conditions are met). These orders may target the alleged infringer or intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to commit infringement acts. In order to assess whether the remedy must be ordered, the judge will take into account wheth - er: • the existence of the IP right concerned is validly established; • the infringement or threat of infringement can - not be validly challenged; and • in the case of a seizure, the facts and the evidence are such as to reasonably justify the seizure, also taking all the interests at stake into consideration, including the general inter - est. These injunctive remedies shall be followed by the initiation of proceedings on the merits within a deadline determined by the judge ordering the measures, or within one month from the notifica - tion of the order. A preliminary injunction is not necessarily sub - ject to the posting of a bond but the bond or an equivalent guarantee may be requested from
10. Remedies 10.1 Injunctive Remedies
Injunctive remedies in the form of summary pro - ceedings available for a trade mark owner or the holder of authors’ rights are provided for by the Law of 22 May 2009, which allows the judge to order one of the following:
280 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook