Main Details: Registry number ORD_60967/2024 Date 12 mai, 2025 Parties Ballinno B.V. v. Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH Order/Decision reference ORD_60967/2024 Type of action Generic Order Language of Proceedings Anglais Court - Division Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English Headnotes: - An appeal against an order for security for costs (R. 158 RoP), brought together with an appeal against an order on provisional measures, is admissible. The admissibility is not affected by the fact that the appellant has later made clear that it no longer requests provisional measures. - If a party when it comes to necessity and urgency builds its case entirely, or at least primarily, on a single event or window of time where allegedly there is a patent infringement, such as the existence of a trade fair or, as here, a major sports event, the party must accept an inherent risk in its procedural strategy. That risk is that the interest falls away once the event is over and that its requests must be rejected for the lack of urgent interest in the requested measures. - If that risk indeed materialises and such a party decides to withdraw its requests for provisional measures, prior to an order from the Court being issued, the result is that the action becomes devoid of purpose. - If an action becomes devoid of purpose following a withdrawal of the main requests by a party who took the inherent risk in its procedural strategy that the urgent interest in the requests fell away before a final order was rendered, it is clear that - had the requests not been withdrawn - the requests would have been rejected for lack of urgent interest. Therefore, such a party must be considered as the unsuccessful party and consequently be held to bear the costs of the proceedings under the general rule of Art. 69 (1) UPCA. - An exception to this may apply where it has been established that the impugned order is based on manifest errors. - Where a party, on the other hand, withdrew its requests for lack of urgent interest before a (final) order in the action was rendered, caused by circumstances it could not reasonably have foreseen, and not due to a materialisation of an inherent and foreseeable risk of a deliberate procedural strategy, equity may require a different allocation of costs. English Mots-clés: Order for security for costs, Extent of legal review, Admissibility of appeal, Action devoid of purpose, Provisional measures, The applicant no longer pursues its requests for provisional measures on appeal Back to Decisions and Orders
Main Details: Registry number ORD_60967/2024 Date 12 mai, 2025 Parties Ballinno B.V. v. Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA), Kinexon Sports & Media GmbH, Kinexon GmbH Order/Decision reference ORD_60967/2024 Type of action Generic Order Language of Proceedings Anglais Court - Division Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU) English Headnotes: - An appeal against an order for security for costs (R. 158 RoP), brought together with an appeal against an order on provisional measures, is admissible. The admissibility is not affected by the fact that the appellant has later made clear that it no longer requests provisional measures. - If a party when it comes to necessity and urgency builds its case entirely, or at least primarily, on a single event or window of time where allegedly there is a patent infringement, such as the existence of a trade fair or, as here, a major sports event, the party must accept an inherent risk in its procedural strategy. That risk is that the interest falls away once the event is over and that its requests must be rejected for the lack of urgent interest in the requested measures. - If that risk indeed materialises and such a party decides to withdraw its requests for provisional measures, prior to an order from the Court being issued, the result is that the action becomes devoid of purpose. - If an action becomes devoid of purpose following a withdrawal of the main requests by a party who took the inherent risk in its procedural strategy that the urgent interest in the requests fell away before a final order was rendered, it is clear that - had the requests not been withdrawn - the requests would have been rejected for lack of urgent interest. Therefore, such a party must be considered as the unsuccessful party and consequently be held to bear the costs of the proceedings under the general rule of Art. 69 (1) UPCA. - An exception to this may apply where it has been established that the impugned order is based on manifest errors. - Where a party, on the other hand, withdrew its requests for lack of urgent interest before a (final) order in the action was rendered, caused by circumstances it could not reasonably have foreseen, and not due to a materialisation of an inherent and foreseeable risk of a deliberate procedural strategy, equity may require a different allocation of costs. English Mots-clés: Order for security for costs, Extent of legal review, Admissibility of appeal, Action devoid of purpose, Provisional measures, The applicant no longer pursues its requests for provisional measures on appeal Back to Decisions and Orders