Mammut Sports Group AG v. Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH, Court of Appeal of the UPC, 25 September 2024, UPC_CoA_182/2024 APL_21143/2024
The Court of Appeal affirmed the PI obtained earlier by Ortovox.
Key points:
– All arguments should be raised in the Statement of appeal. Referring to arguments made in the main proceedings does not make them part of the appeal proceedings. The court is not required to search for and determine in the annexes the grounds on which the appeal may be based.
Therefore, Mammut’s application to admit the arguments in the statement of defence in the main proceedings and in the counterclaim for revocation in the appeal proceedings was rejected.
– The period of waiting within the meaning of Rule 211(4) RoP (regarding unreasobable delay in seeking provisional measures) is to be measured from the day on which the applicant has or should have had such knowledge of the infringement that he is in a position to make a promising application for provisional measures pursuant to R.206(2) of the RoP.The relevant point in time is therefore the time at which the applicant has the necessary facts and evidence within the meaning of R.206(2d) RoP or should have had them with due care.
In this case the Court of Appeal ruled that seeing a prototype on a tradeshow did not start the waiting period.
The entire Order (in German) can be read here.
