Schultz successful in case instituted by Karnov about the use of UfR numbers
04 June 2018
Schultz may still allow searches for and identification of judgments in its law reports by use of the so-called UfR numbers. This was the decision reached by the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court in a case between Karnov Group Denmark A/S and J.H. Schultz Information A/S. Plesner represented Schultz in the case.
For more than 50 years, Karnov's weekly law reports (Ugeskrift for Retsvæsen (UfR)) has been the primary general collection of Danish law reports. The reference to the UfR number is the most frequently used way in which to identify Danish judgments in legal texts. It is a de facto standard to refer only to the UfR number of a judgment.
Schultz's law reports compete with Karnov's UfR law reports. Schultz has obtained all judgments for its own law reports from the courts. In order to facilitate the search for and identification in Schultz's databases of judgments, which are only referred to by their UfR numbers in public sources of law, it is necessary for Schultz to use UfR numbers as metatags and when making references to judgments.
"UfR" is Karnov's trademark. Karnov found Schultz's use of UfR numbers to be a problem and therefore instituted legal proceedings claiming that Schultz was to be enjoined from using UfR numbers in its law reports.
Karnov instituted legal proceedings before the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court in 2015 claiming a preliminary injunction. The Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court granted an injunction but Schultz appealed the ruling to the Danish Eastern High Court, which revoked the injunction on 7 July 2016.
Karnov subsequently instituted ordinary legal proceedings before the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court against Schultz's use of the UfR numbers. On 3 May 2018, the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court delivered judgment in favour of Schultz.
The Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court held that Schultz does not use the UfR number as a trademark but merely as descriptive information about a specific judgment delivered by the courts. Accordingly, the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court found that Schultz does not infringe Karnov's trademark rights. For the same reason and as there was no disloyal behaviour on the part of Schultz the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court found that Schultz had not acted in contravention of the rules of the Danish Marketing Practices Act either.
The case is of great significance to anyone wishing to make a collection of Danish legal decisions, and both The Association of Danish Law Firms (Danske Advokater) and The Danish Association of Lawyers and Economists (DJØF) had intervened in the proceedings as non-parties in support of Schultz.
Read the Maritime and Commercial Court's judgment (in Danish)
Read Advokatwatch's article about the judgment (in Danish)
Schultz's law reports compete with Karnov's UfR law reports. Schultz has obtained all judgments for its own law reports from the courts. In order to facilitate the search for and identification in Schultz's databases of judgments, which are only referred to by their UfR numbers in public sources of law, it is necessary for Schultz to use UfR numbers as metatags and when making references to judgments.
"UfR" is Karnov's trademark. Karnov found Schultz's use of UfR numbers to be a problem and therefore instituted legal proceedings claiming that Schultz was to be enjoined from using UfR numbers in its law reports.
Karnov instituted legal proceedings before the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court in 2015 claiming a preliminary injunction. The Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court granted an injunction but Schultz appealed the ruling to the Danish Eastern High Court, which revoked the injunction on 7 July 2016.
Karnov subsequently instituted ordinary legal proceedings before the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court against Schultz's use of the UfR numbers. On 3 May 2018, the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court delivered judgment in favour of Schultz.
The Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court held that Schultz does not use the UfR number as a trademark but merely as descriptive information about a specific judgment delivered by the courts. Accordingly, the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court found that Schultz does not infringe Karnov's trademark rights. For the same reason and as there was no disloyal behaviour on the part of Schultz the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court found that Schultz had not acted in contravention of the rules of the Danish Marketing Practices Act either.
The case is of great significance to anyone wishing to make a collection of Danish legal decisions, and both The Association of Danish Law Firms (Danske Advokater) and The Danish Association of Lawyers and Economists (DJØF) had intervened in the proceedings as non-parties in support of Schultz.
Read the Maritime and Commercial Court's judgment (in Danish)
Read Advokatwatch's article about the judgment (in Danish)
