Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The seizure by customs authorities of counterfeited goods: the ruling by the European Court of Justice in Blomqvist v. Rolex and the changes brought about by regulation (EU) No. 608/2013

  • Article
  • Published:
ERA Forum Aims and scope

Abstract

European Union customs seizure procedures allow for the detention and destruction of counterfeited goods, preventing them from entering the territory of the European Union. They constitute the main and key mechanism of exercising intellectual property rights by right holders and remain the most effective tool for the enforcement of intellectual property rights. Due to the crucial role of that mechanism and the constant development of legislation as well as recent critical judgments of the European Court of Justice regarding the customs seizure regime, it is worthwhile detailing the current regulations and the prospects for the future in this field.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Report on European Union customs enforcement of intellectual property rights—Results at the European Union border 2013, p. 7, at: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/statistics/2014_ipr_statistics_en.pdf.

  2. Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3842/86 of 1 December 1986 laying down measures to prohibit the release of counterfeit goods for free circulation (OJEU, L 357, 18.12.1986).

  3. Council Resolution of 25 September 2008 on a comprehensive European anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy plan (OJEU C 253 of 4.10.2008).

  4. Council Regulation (EC) No. 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights, and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights (OJEU, L 196/7, 2.8.2003).

  5. Council Resolution of 16 March 2009 on the European Union Customs Action Plan to combat intellectual property right infringements for the years 2009 to 2012 (OJEU, C 71/01, 27.3.2009).

  6. Regulation (EU) No. 608/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No. 1383/2003 (OJEU, L 181, 29.06.2013).

  7. Report on European Union customs enforcement of intellectual property rights—Results at the EU border 2012, at: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/statistics/2013_ipr_statistics_en.pdf.

  8. Ibidem, p. 7.

  9. Case C-98/13 Martin Blomqvist v. Rolex SA, Manufacture des Montres Rolex SA, judgment of 6 February 2014, not yet reported.

  10. Joined Cases C-446/09 and C-495/09 Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v. Lucheng Meijing Industrial Company Ltd, [2011] ECR I-12435.

  11. Report p. 14.

  12. Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks of 14 April, 1891, as revised at Brussels on 14 December, 1900, at Washington on 2 June, 1911, at The Hague on 6 November, 1925, at London on 2 June, 1934, at Nice on 15 June, 1957, and at Stockholm on 14 July, 1967, and as amended on 28 September, 1979.

  13. Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks adopted at Madrid on 27 June, 1989, as amended on 3 October, 2006 and on 12 November, 2007.

  14. Case C-302/08 Zino Davidoff SA v. Bundesfinanzdirektorin Suedost [2009] ECR I-05671.

  15. Customs End-Use Guidelines for Traders, Revenue, March 2013, p. 4, at: http://www.revenue.ie/en/customs/leaflets/end_use_guide.pdf.

  16. Customs enforcement of intellectual property rights in the European Union. Manual for the completion of applications for action and extension requests Regulation (EU) No. 608/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 June 2013 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 1352/2013 of 4 December 2013, August 2014, at: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/right_holders/manual-application-for-action_en.pdf.

  17. Carl De Meyer and Carina Gommers [1], pp. 771–775.

  18. Guidelines of the European Commission concerning the enforcement by European Union customs authorities of intellectual property rights with regard to goods, in particular medicines, in transit through the European Union, European Commission 1 February 2012, at: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/documents/customs/customs_controls/counterfeit_piracy/legislation/guidelines_on_transit_en.pdf.

  19. Case C-324/09 L’Oréal SA v. eBay International AG [2011] ECR I-06011.

  20. Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No. 207/2009 on the Community Trade Mark Brussels, 27 March 2013 COM(2013) 161 final 2013/0088 (COD).

  21. Council Resolution on the European Union Customs Action Plan to combat intellectual property right infringements for the years 2013 to 2017 (OJEU, C 80/1, 19.3.2013).

References

  1. De Meyer, C., Gommers, C.: The transit dilemma revisited: the New Customs Regulation and the legislative package on trade Marks. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 8(10), 771–775 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hasik & Partners, Attorneys-at-law, ul. Okolnik 11a/30, 00-368, Warsaw, Poland

    Daniel Hasik & Anna Łapińska

Authors
  1. Daniel Hasik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Łapińska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Hasik.

Additional information

D. Hasik is a partner at Hasik & Partners, Attorneys-at-law.

A. Łapińska is a lawyer at Hasik & Partners, Attorneys-at-law.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hasik, D., Łapińska, A. The seizure by customs authorities of counterfeited goods: the ruling by the European Court of Justice in Blomqvist v. Rolex and the changes brought about by regulation (EU) No. 608/2013. ERA Forum 16, 73–87 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-015-0380-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-015-0380-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation