AIM Sport Development AG v. TGI Suomi Sport Oy a.o., UPC CFI Helsinki LD, Case no. ACT_551054/2023, ACT_551054/2023
On 29 April 2026, the Helsinki LD handed down its decision disposing of TGI’s provisional measures application pursuant to R. 360 RoP.
In 2023, TGI lodged a preliminary objection to the infringement case brought against it by AIM, contesting competence and jurisdiction of the court. This objection was allowed by the Helsinki LD but subsequently set aside on appeal and the case returned to the LD.
At the interim conference in the main infringement action, AIM argued the application should be disposed of pursuant to R. 360 RoP since it had become devoid of purpose and therefore there was no need to adjudicate on it, although requested a finding on costs. AIM conditionally agreed to this approach.
The LD found that R. 360 RoP can be used mutatis mutandis with provisional measures procedures as with actions. Since the reason for seeking the PI application had now passed, it had become devoid of purpose and it would be a waste of court resources if a party were obliged to continue such an application purely for the purpose of claiming costs. The application was disposed of. On costs, since TGI was the successful party in the main infringement action, AIM was ordered to bear its costs of the provisional measures application.
A copy of the decision can be found here.
