The IPKat
Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech, privacy and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!
The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward, Neil J. Wilkof, and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here!
The team is joined by GuestKats Léon Dijkman, Riana Harvey, Rose Hughes, Thomas Key, Nedim Malovic, Frantzeska Papadopolou, and Alex Woolgar.
SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Hayleigh Bosher (Book Review Editor), Tian Lu (Asia Correspondent) and Chijioke Okorie (Africa Correspondent).
InternKats: Sophie Corke, Magdaleen Jooste, and Anastasiia Kyrylenko.
A bit more about the IPKat
The IPKat Team
Kats' posts
Kats of the Past & Emeritus Kats
Home / intermediation / Jeremy Phillips / regulation / services directive / transport services / Uber / Is UberPOP a transport service? A new reference to the CJEU
Is UberPOP a transport service? A new reference to the CJEU
Jeremy Monday, June 29, 2015 - intermediation, Jeremy Phillips, regulation, services directive, transport services, Uber
Like it or not, we have entered the age of Uber -- the love-it-or-loathe-it ride-share scheme which has caught not only the imagination of the public but the attention of the lawyers. In this guest post, Katfriend Revital Cohen (Baker & McKenzie, Barcelona) tells us all about a legal development that may have major repercussions in Europe not just for our understanding of the concept of a "transport service" but for our attitude towards new web-based business models that do not fit neatly within the concepts and classifications found in European Union regulatory and competition law up to the earlier years of this century, Revital explains:
Many readers will be familiar with Uber, the on-demand ride-sharing platform which has revolutionised the concept of urban transport. Launched in San Francisco in 2009, it has quickly expanded all over the world and it is now currently available in 57 countries.
Uber offers a range of different services. From UberBLACK, a professional limousine service, to UberPOP, an informal ride-sharing service connecting passengers with drivers of private cars through a smartphone application. The GPS location sharing, the pick-up timing and the payment are all performed online. UberPOP drivers are not required to have a licence to pick up the passengers and are not bound to regulations that apply to taxis.
UberPOP's undeniable success has nevertheless shaken the heavily regulated taxi industry. In Europe, following taxi associations' protests and claims, UberPOP has been restricted in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Italy. In some of those countries, courts have taken the view that Uber operates as a conventional transport company and that it is breaching licensing regulations governing professional taxi drivers, as well as local laws on passenger transportation since the activities of UberPOP drivers do not fall within the scope of the relevant licences.
Asociación Profesional Élite Taxi on Twitter
In Spain, UberPOP has been temporarily suspended since December following an injunction issued by the Commercial Court of Madrid. This is not the only court dealing with Uber in Spain since, on 29 October 2014, Profesional Élite Taxi filed a claim before the Commercial Court of Barcelona alleging that Uber's activities constituted acts of unfair competition. Six months after the injunction issued by the Madrid Court, Judge José María Fernández Seijo, who is handling the Uber case in Barcelona, decided to stay the proceedings and seek guidance from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) as regards the legal nature of the services offered by Uber.
The Order for Reference, which was issued on 17 June, is available here in Spanish. Paragraph 9 of the Order can be translated as follows:
"In order to determine whether Uber is engaging in acts of unfair competition under Spanish law, I consider it necessary to determine before whether or not [Uber] requires a prior authorization; the authorization will depend on the nature of services which are carried out [by Uber], by establishing whether it is a transport service, an information society service, or a combination of both things."
In greater detail, the questions which are referred to the CJEU are:
1. Does Article 2(2)(d) of Directive 2006/123 ... on services in the internal market [the "Services Directive"] exclude from the scope of the Directive the lucrative activities of intermediation between the owner of a vehicle and a person needing transportation within a given city, [where that intermediation consists in] providing the digital means – interface and software application – allowing them to connect, as that service is deemed a transport service? [Article 2.2 of the Services Directive expressly excludes a number of services from its scope, including "(d) services in the field of transport, including port services, falling within the scope of Title V of the Treaty". Recital (21) of the Services Directive also establishes that transport services, including taxis, should be excluded from the scope of the Services Directive].
2. Should the service carried out by UBER SYSTEMS SPAIN, S.L. not be considered a transport service but fall within the scope of the Services Directive, is Article 15 of the Unfair Competition Act – which refers to the infringement of any laws having as their object the regulation of trade – contrary to the Services Directive, namely Article 9 on the freedom of establishment and authorization scheme, when the reference to internal laws or rules is made without taking into account that the authorization, permit, and license regime cannot be in any way restrictive, that is, cannot unreasonably hinder the principle of the freedom of establishment? [In accordance with Article 9(1) of the Services Directive, authorisation schemes may be maintained by Member States only if they are non-discriminatory, justified by an overriding reason relating to the public interest and proportionate, that is, that the objective pursued cannot be attained by means of a less restrictive measure].
Those questions might still be not final as the parties had five days in which to submit comments. The final questions, though, have not been reported yet.
Licensed to purr ...
The CJEU answers could have a huge potential impact on the legal challenges that Uber is currently facing in Europe. Indeed, should the CJEU rule that Uber is not a transport service and that the Services Directive applies, the legality of the restrictions imposed by the Member States under the current regulations will have to be assessed under the principles enshrined in the Services Directive, namely the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of proportionality and freedom of establishment, to the pleasure of Courtney Love.
Be that as it may, the Court of Barcelona's reference may shed light on the wider, international debate over the sharing economy versus traditional services. On one hand, new services such as Uber have completely changed perception of transportation, accommodation, advertising, food services and so on. As this case study published by the Business Innovation Observatory highlights, the growth of the internet and of the information technology has created value and opportunity without resorting to traditional industry, by facilitating
"a match between a consumer owning a certain resource (property or skill/competence) and a consumer in need of that resource, at the right time and against reasonable transaction costs".
While they present substantial differences compared to traditional industry, in some cases they share the same "traditional" public or, anyhow influence, the way consumers enjoy "traditional" services (think, eg, to over-the-top video platforms providing user generated contents compared to traditional broadcasters that choose their programmes).
Sharing can be fun ...
Is that enough to justify the application of laws and regulations designed for conventional industry to new platforms? The answer to this question is far from easy, given the different (and sometimes diverging) interests involved. On the one hand, traditional industries should be put in the position to play in a balanced and non-discriminatory competitive environment. On the other, new-economy enterprises deserve a legal framework that values their peculiarities, allowing them to exist and keep innovating. Last but not least, consumers' right to choose and to benefit of new economy's added value shall be safeguarded.
Inasmuch as new and traditional services actually compete one with the other, a reasonable balance could be found by providing light regulation for the first and a substantial de-regulation for the latter. Ultimately a less-is-more legal framework for all could be another added value brought by new economy.
Says the IPKat, apart from its obvious challenge placed by Uber to traditional transport service licensing and regulation, the use of the word "Uber" within the context of an intermediation between consumers (passengers) and the service providers (drivers) raises questions for intermediation activities that address trade mark law too. These affect the correct classification of services as well as trade mark use: whose use is it and what is its effect, whether for the purposes of acquiring distinctive character, of establishing genuine use, or of infringement?
Is UberPOP a transport service? A new reference to the CJEU Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, June 29, 2015 Rating: 5
The IPKat licenses the use of its blog posts under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial Licence.
Print this post Share This:
Les Hurdle Monday, 29 June 2015 at 12:21:00 BST
Should Uber drivers pay for the Neighbouring Right if they 'play' music while acting in a retail fashion?
Who would collect the data & money from 57 countries and countless drivers, how would performers be paid?
Anonymous Monday, 29 June 2015 at 12:46:00 BST
Of course they should. The drivers should be appropriately licensed as individual businesses. Uber should not, since Uber only acts as an introductions agency, metering service provider and payment processor. Uber does not perform any restricted act. As to who collects the data, the situation would be similar to that of any other business or trader: self-reporting, regulated by "mystery shopper" activities.
Roufousse T. Fairfly Monday, 29 June 2015 at 15:05:00 BST
I don't quite see the IP angle in the Uber referral, this is more about competition and labour law.
In any case, I expect rogue's bubble to burst in one way or another, even though I don't expect the cabbies' lot to improve in the process.
The next installment is potentially more interesting: what about vehicles without human drivers? It is only a matter of time before the various self-driving car projects mature, including Google's. I don't expect a business model where tin fetishes are sold to private buyers, who would leave them parked 23 hours a day in one place or another, to be viable.
One hundred years of automotive blight are enough.
The obvious use would be automated on-demand transportation services, for both passengers and goods, and for short and long distances.
I believe this would at last signal the end of the private motorcar.
This would be the ultimate writing on the wall for the majority of taxi and lorry drivers, with relatively few jobs left in sectors such as hearse driving. This isn't as desirable.
The first outcome I rather hope for, even though it compounds the present issues about privacy, as I don't think you will be able to hail a Google car on the street and pay in cash in a vehicle totally devoid of surveillance devices. But then a human driver and his dispatcher can also see and remember things.
The second one is rather more difficult. This would spell upheaval in traditional cab services, or even Uber if it manage to survive another ten years or so.
The first launcher of such a service would be very vertically integrated, providing the vehicle, its sensors and hazard avoidance software, and the controlling the booking and street navigation system. Would they attempt to break into each market by creating a new service from the ground up, with garages, workshops, and vehicles? This begins to look like a monopoly, especially if the business is backed up by a strong IP portfolio.
An alternative would be to sell automated vehicles to existing taxicab operators. Can this be viable? On what basis would the operators compete?
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html
The IPKat: Intellectual Property News and Fun for Everyone!
How many page-views has the IPKat received?
Not just any old IPKat ...
- "Most Popular Intellectual Property Law Blawg" of all time according to Justia rankings, January 2021.
- "Most Popular Copyright Blawg" of all time according to Justia rankings, January 2021.
- PermaKat Eleonora Rosati listed as one of the World Intellectual Property Review's "Influential Women in IP" of 2020.
- PermaKat Eleonora Rosati listed as one of the Managing Intellectual Property magazine's "Fifty Most Influential People" of 2018.
- IPKat founder and Blogmeister Emeritus Jeremy Phillips listed as one of the Managing Intellectual Property magazine's "Fifty Most Influential People" of 2005, 2011, 2013, and 2014.
- Recommended by the European Patent Office as reading material for candidates for the European Qualifying Examinations, 2013.
- Listed as "Top Legal Blog" in The Times Online, March 2011.
- One of the only two non-US blogs listed in the Blawg 2010 ABA Journal 100.
- Court Reporter Top Copyright Blog award winner, November 2010.
- Number 1 in the 2010 Top Copyright Blog list compiled by the Copyright Litigation Blog, July 2010.
- Selected by United States Library of Congress for inclusion in its historic collections of Internet materials related to Legal Blawgs 2010.
- Top Patent Blog poll 2009: 3rd out of 50 in the "Favourite Patent Blog" poll and 2nd out of 50 in the "Most-read" poll.
- ComputerWeekly IT Law and Governance Blog of the Year, 20 August 2008.
- Best of the Blogs, Times Online, 21 August 2008.
Get the Kat in your Inbox!
Over 16,400 readers already subscribe to the IPKat by email.
To subscribe click here and enter your preferred e-mail address.
Any problems, please let the IPKat team know.
The Kat that tweets! Current followers: 20.8K
To follow the IPKat team's posts and comments on Twitter, just click here Follow @Ipkat
Tweets by Ipkat
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn!
Follow the IPKat on Facebook
Follow the IPKat on Reddit
Follow the IPKat on Reddit here!
The IPKat's most-read posts in the past 30 days
Swedish Patent and Market Court of Appeal cancels Crocs three-dimensional trade mark
IPKat Book of the Year Awards 2020 Winners!
Boards of Appeal are competent to overturn a finding of fact at first instance (T 1604/16)
General Court says that 'MARK' and 'MARQ' are confusingly similar despite low degree of similarity between respective goods
Farewell Post: Can QR codes be registered as trade marks?
[GuestPost] The role of big data, SEPs, PAEs and copyright in Digital Transformation: IP Tech Summit 2020 Report
Decision in the German AdWords referral Eis.de
Sweet grapes, sour grapes, or the grapes of wrath: what is going on with this collecting society?
New Year, New IP Law - Protect Lawful Streaming Act, CASE Act, and Trademark Modernization Act
Around the Blogs
Tuesday tiddlywinks
Are EU policy-makers fighting the right copyright ...
Patent Déjà vu - Hospira v Genentech and another p...
Letter from AmeriKat: Spiderman's web ensnares th...
Payment for use of protected barley seeds: when p...
Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week ...
Jumpin' through hoops? A copyright claim that neve...
Is UberPOP a transport service? A new reference to...
Benna, Bnina, Baina: a carefully-scripted ruling f...
Round, round: how to round? How do we round?
Case management decisions in the Lyrica case
Will proof of a well-known mark ultimately be dete...
Friday fantasies
Freedom of panorama: what is going on at the EU le...
Council of Europe focuses on Eponia, and there's m...
A novel becomes a saga - Actavis v Lilly set to go...
Canary Wharf: great place name, not much hope for ...
Not so secret agent: when Bond isn't 007 but 0.77
Consultation event on Court Fees for the Unified P...
Delfi v Estonia: ISPs and the freedom to impart in...
Are you a new IP lawyer in search of a network? He...
Poll results: Inventor of the Year
Hello goodbye: no estoppel as licensee gets the push
One for all and all for one: here comes more mirro...
Monday miscellany
Letter from Japan 1: product placement
Letter from AmeriKat: The patent "wrist" race beg...
Lack of fair compensation requirement in UK privat...
The Supreme Court in Starbucks (HK); on adjectives...
Going Dutch: a national initiative on data breach ...
Pots and kettles, glass houses and stones -- the U...
When the business is over: an IP enthusiast's thou...
French toast leaves a sour taste for Battistelli o...
Slowly stopping counterfeits in transit: EU prepar...
Harmonious global patent harmonisation? B+ subgrou...
Swiss cheese, Innocence and a question of guilt: G...
Lego 3D manikin mark valid, says General Court
Not the only regional ogre: does EPO have a soul-m...
Given up on following the EPO posts? Here's a reca...
Monarchy in the United States: validity is king, f...
The Loi Hamon: France sets new standards for indus...
A prelude to patent litigation? Ericsson tackles A...
Is 3D printing good or bad for counterfeiting?
"Three aspects of information: Current issues in t...
Is connectivity a human right? Filling a gap betwe...
A taste of things to come? Dutch court rejects sen...
What the ...! Wathelet gives Nestlé application a...
Wednesday whimsies
Robin reliant on opposition, but can he fend off F...
"Spy scandal" - EPO hits the news in Germany
Save our open WiFi: an open letter
IP litigation and enforcement: the pendulum effect...
Play the name game with Giovanni? General Court do...
Swiss claims: a Kat reflects on the Warner-Lambert...
Independence of the Boards of Appeal - EPLAW and C...
Trowel and Error: power-tools aren't similar to ma...
When trade secrets lead to a herd mentality in inv...
Copyright cases for the CJEU: have your say
Copyright in the Bahamas: a tale of art and septic...
The Last Miles, or still edging along? Patent refo...
Opposition is golden as Kraft's ORO marks do their...
It's a crime -- or might be, as another software e...
Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial Licence
The IPKat licenses the use of its blog posts under this Creative Commons Licence.
Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here
Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':
Feed me IPKat!
Has the Kat got your tongue?
The IPKat's cousins: some IP-friendly blogs for you
US DOJ Antitrust Division Releases Review Letter Concerning University Patent Pool
IPTango
Chile and the Madrid Protocol: are we close yet?
jiplp
Free content in honour of the INTA 2020 Annual Meeting
The SPC blog
Afro-IP - african intellectual property law, practice and policies
In the world of COVID-19, has the value of the Intellectual Property become an afterthought? Guest Post
SOLO Independent IP Practitioners
BONZO DOG and the last men standing principle
At last ... the 1709 Copyright Blog
2019 - THE COPYRIGHT YEAR
MARQUES Class 46 Blog
MoU on online advertising and IPR to be signed during Blockathon
Out for the count...
Designed by SoraTemplates and distributed by Gooyaabi Templates