Readers may wish to note a combined reference made by the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling: it's Cases C-24/16 and C-25/16 Nintendo and Others.

The underlying dispute concerns the sale of accessories to the Wii games console that allegedly infringe intellectual property rights by one company domiciled in France and by another in Germany.

The questions referred for a preliminary ruling look like this:

1. In connection with a trial to enforce claims under a Community design, can the court of a Member State whose jurisdiction with respect to a defendant is based solely on Article 79(1) of Council Regulation 6/2002 on Community designs in conjunction with Article 6(1) of Council Regulation 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, on the basis that this defendant, which is domiciled in another Member State, supplied the defendant domiciled in the pertinent Member State with goods that may infringe intellectual property rights, adopt measures against the first mentioned defendant that are applicable throughout the EU and extend beyond the supply relationships on which jurisdiction is based?

2. Is Regulation No 6/2002, particularly Article 20(1)(c), to be interpreted as meaning that a third party may depict a Community design for commercial purposes if it intends to sell accessory items for the right holder’s goods corresponding to the Community design? If so, what criteria apply to this?

3. For the purposes of Article 8(2) of Regulation 864/2007 on the law applicable to noncontractual obligations, how is the place ‘in which the act of infringement was committed’ to be determined in cases in which the infringer a. offers goods that infringe a Community design on a website and that website is also directed at Member States other than the one in which the person damaged by the infringement is domiciled, and/or b. has goods that infringe a Community design shipped to a Member State other than the one in which it is domiciled? Is Article 15(a) and (g) of Regulation 864/2007 to be interpreted as meaning that the law determined in this manner is also applicable to participatory acts of other persons?

As usual, the UK government is inviting comments that might suggest to it that it should make a submission in these proceedings. If you would like to do so, just email policy@ipo.gov.uk by 3 March 2016.