|The Benelux is not a Member State of the European Union, but it's|
fully part of the territory of the EU, so what courts would be
designated if the Brussels I regulation is used?
After the observation of the Court of Appeal of The Hague (who didn't think it necessary to ask prejudicial questions) end 2013 that Brussels I would apply, the reasoning was followed in several Dutch cases. Where the assumption of jurisdiction would lead to differences when applying the Brussels I or when applying the Benelux convention, the court (always the The Hague court) suggested to ask prejudicial questions to CJEU.
It's three months later now: so time for a short update
* Still no questions are asked! In the The Hague district court case Sojuzplodoimport v Spirits International the plaintiff accepted jurisdiction of the Rotterdam court (thus stopping the The Hague procedure), and therefore the need for the questions disappeared.
* The Hague Court still maintains that Brussels I probably prevails, lastly today in Converse/All Star v Carmika.
* After Belgian courts have not discussed the tension between Brussels I and the Benelux convention most of last year, the jurisdiction issues have now also appeared in the Court Appeal of Brussels (and upon questions of the judge also at the end of the procedure of the court of first Instance): In Louboutin v Dr. Adams Footwear (the infamous litigation regarding rights regarding the red sole, via ieforum.be) the judge notices the Dutch position, but argues that it is not relevant in the present procedure, as both instruments give rise to the same outcome (jurisdiction within the scope of Brussels I could be assumed based on appearance of Dr. Adams in the dispute).
*I am not aware of the situation being an issue in Luxembourg (it was not addressed in the case against the rejection of the trademark Benediktiner Weissbier)...
So in short: the notion that Brussels I may be prevailing is gaining support; and at least in the Netherlands this may be turning into that Brussels I probably applies. It seems to me only a matter of time before questions to CJEU (and possibly Benelux Court of Justice) are asked in a case where different conclusions are reached based on the Benelux Convention and based on Brussels I.