UPC Local Division: Security for Costs

The applicant has a legitimate interest in the exchange of the security for costs. They originally decided to deposit the security for enforcement to ensure immediate enforcement of the preliminary injunction. It would not have been possible for the applicant to obtain a bank guarantee within a very short period of time, as the applicant is a US company and its main bank is a US bank that is not directly supervised by the European Central Bank, which is why it is not able to provide a bank guarantee for the purposes of a security for enforcement ordered by the UPC. The applicant's main bank therefore had to turn to a European bank, which in turn provided the bank guarantee. On this basis, it is understandable that the applicant initially decided to provide a security in the form of a deposit. As the applicant has further explained, a deposit is economically disadvantageous for them. Their request for the exchange of the security is therefore justified (LK Düsseldorf 20. 2. 2025, CFI 463/2023).