Preliminary injunctions
Czech Republic
In the Czech Republic, PI proceedings are a potent tool for trade mark owners to stop infringements quickly.
Despite their temporary nature, PIs often pave the way to a lasting resolution of conflicts, be it through subsequent negotiations of the parties or by subsequent judgment in the main proceedings already reflecting the outcome of the PI.
Urgency
The PI may be granted, on request of the applicant, if it is necessary to regulate the relations between the parties provisionally or if there is a concern that the enforcement of a court decision may be jeopardised.
Remedies
- PIs are usually aimed at injunctive relief. Main proceedings need not already be pending or applied for at the time of the request for a PI; 'standalone' PI requests are common. If a 'standalone' PI is granted, the court orders a deadline (usually one month) for the successful applicant to initiate main infringement proceedings. If, before such a deadline, main infringement proceedings have not been initiated, the PI’s effects automatically expire.
- PIs may be issued if it is necessary to secure the claim itself, ie to provisionally regulate the relations between the parties or the future enforcement of the claim itself. In respect of securing needed evidence, a similar type of proceedings can be used instead of PI proceedings, subject to similar rules as PI proceedings.
Urgency
The PI may be granted, on request of the applicant, if it is necessary to regulate the relations between the parties provisionally or if there is a concern that the enforcement of a court decision may be jeopardised.
Remedies
- PIs are usually aimed at injunctive relief. Main proceedings need not already be pending or applied for at the time of the request for a PI; 'standalone' PI requests are common. If a 'standalone' PI is granted, the court orders a deadline (usually one month) for the successful applicant to initiate main infringement proceedings. If, before such a deadline, main infringement proceedings have not been initiated, the PI’s effects automatically expire.
- PIs may be issued if it is necessary to secure the claim itself, ie to provisionally regulate the relations between the parties or the future enforcement of the claim itself. In respect of securing needed evidence, a similar type of proceedings can be used instead of PI proceedings, subject to similar rules as PI proceedings.
Irreparable harm
- The courts assess whether irreparable harm exists based on the specifics of each case. Factors considered may include the nature of the rights being protected and the potential consequences of not granting the injunction. In cases involving intellectual property, such as those dealt with here, ie, trade mark infringement, the launch of an infringing product may cause irreparable harm to the trade mark holder's market position.
- Under Czech law, while it is not strictly required to demonstrate irreparable harm to obtain a PI, establishing that such harm exists can strengthen the case for granting the injunction. The court will weigh the interests of both parties and consider whether the potential harm to the applicant outweighs any harm that might be caused to the respondent by granting the injunction and, consequently, whether it is justifiable to 'provisionally regulate the relations of the parties with a PI.'
Ex parte injunctions
- PIs under Czech civil procedure rules are ex parte ones, ie without any court hearing being ordered and without direct involvement of the respondent. The court grants an ex parte injunction based on the evidence presented by the applicant. The applicant must typically demonstrate, by submitting documentation, that there is a strong likelihood of success on the merits of the case and that irreparable harm will occur if the injunction is not granted ie that it is needed to provisionally regulate the relations of the parties.
Evidence and level of proof
- It is sufficient for the applicant to document relevant facts to justify the issuance of a PI. This means that the applicant does not need to provide exhaustive evidence at this stage but must demonstrate that there are credible grounds for their request.
Ex parte injunctions
- PIs under Czech civil procedure rules are ex parte ones, ie without any court hearing being ordered and without direct involvement of the respondent. The court grants an ex parte injunction based on the evidence presented by the applicant. The applicant must typically demonstrate, by submitting documentation, that there is a strong likelihood of success on the merits of the case and that irreparable harm will occur if the injunction is not granted ie that it is needed to provisionally regulate the relations of the parties.
Evidence and level of proof
- It is sufficient for the applicant to document relevant facts to justify the issuance of a PI. This means that the applicant does not need to provide exhaustive evidence at this stage but must demonstrate that there are credible grounds for their request.
Serving and enforcing the injunction
- Once the court grants a PI, it must be formally served to the party against whom it is directed (the respondent). This ensures that the respondent is aware of the injunction and its terms.
- If the respondent fails to comply with the terms of the PI, the applicant can seek enforcement through the court. This may involve requesting a court order enforcing compliance or seeking penalties for non-compliance.
Appeal opportunities
The options for challenging a PI are limited. The respondent is generally only able to respond to the application through an appeal, which is the sole legal remedy against a resolution ordering a PI. When preparing an appeal against an unreasoned resolution for a PI, the respondent must rely on the application and the case file and provide a compelling response to all of the applicant’s assertions that may have influenced the court’s decision.