In an action seeking to hold a parent company and its subsidiary jointly and severally liable for damage caused by the subsidiary's infringement of the competition rules, Article 8(1) does not preclude the court of the parent company's residence, when establishing its international jurisdiction, from relying on the presumption that a parent company holding directly or indirectly all or almost all of the subsidiary's capital exercises decisive influence over it - provided that the defendants are not deprived of the possibility of relying on firm evidence either that the parent did not hold directly or indirectly all or almost all of that capital, or that the presumption should nevertheless be rebutted.

Defendants domiciled in different Member States may all be sued in the courts for the place where one of them is domiciled in an EU trade mark infringement action, provided that the claims are brought by the proprietor of the EU trade mark against all of them, each defendant is accused of a materially identical infringement, and they are connected by an exclusive distribution agreement.

If the court seised of the original proceedings reverses its decision that it has jurisdiction over those proceedings, that reversal automatically also excludes its jurisdiction over the claims made by the intervening third party.

Article 8(3) also applies where, in proceedings on a claim for infringement of personality rights based on photographs taken and videos recorded without the applicant's knowledge, the defendant brings a counterclaim for compensation in tort, delict or quasi-delict, including for restrictions on the defendant's intellectual creations that are the subject of the original application, provided that deciding the counterclaim requires the court to assess the lawfulness of the conduct on which the applicant bases the original claim.