Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Legitimate Reasons for Excluding the Application of the Principle of EU-Wide Exhaustion of Trademark Rights: The Provisions of Article 7 (2) of Directive 2008/95/EC and Article 13 (2) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009/ΕC

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Trade Marks and Free Trade

  • 1280 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter analyses, in the light of the ECJ’s case law, the cases in which the application of the provisions of Articles 7 (1) of Directive 2008/95/EC and 13 (1) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 is precluded, that is to say the semantic content of the term “legitimate reasons” used in Articles 7 (2) of Directive 2008/95/EC and 13 (2) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009. Based on the doctrine of specific subject matter of trademark rights, i.e. the rationale of the rule of Community-wide exhaustion of trademark rights, “legitimate reasons” allowing the proprietor of a trademark to oppose parallel imports of goods bearing the trademark that have been put on the market within the EEA by the trademark proprietor or with his consent or, in other words, “legitimate reasons” for excluding the application of Article 7 (1) of Directive 2008/95/EC and Article 13 (1) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 shall exist a) where the condition of the parallel imported goods is changed or impaired after they have been put on the market for the first time and b) where the use of the trademark affixed to the parallel imported goods by the independent trader (parallel importer or independent reseller) entails damage or a risk of damage to the reputation or the distinctive character of the trademark or an unfair exploitation of the reputation or the distinctive character of the trademark.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For national or supranational provisions on the exclusion of the applicability of the principle of exhaustion of trademark rights, see collectively Appendix to this book.

  2. 2.

    Where, in the context of the present chapter, the phrase “without the authorisation of the trademark proprietor” is used without any further explanation, the term “trademark proprietor” used in it shall refer to the trademark proprietor seeking to prohibit the parallel importation described in the sentence concerned.

  3. 3.

    Where, in the context of the present chapter, the term “Member State” is used without any further explanation, that term shall refer to the Member States of the European Union, save if the relevant note exclusively refers to a time prior to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty (signed at Lisbon on 13.12.2007 and entered into force on 01.12.2009), where the term in question shall refer to the Member States of the European Community.

  4. 4.

    See supra section “Parallel Imports of Pharmaceutical Products and Protection of Origin Function of the Trademark”.

  5. 5.

    As regards the doctrine of specific subject matter of trademark rights, see supra Sect. 7.3.3.

  6. 6.

    See Recital 11 in the Preamble to Directive 2008/95/ΕC and Recital 8 in the Preamble to Regulation (EC) 207/2009, where the origin function is recognised as the primary (but not the only) function of trademarks.

  7. 7.

    Cf. Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen in Case C-324/09, L’Oréal SA and Others v. eBay International AG and Others, [2011] ECR I-6011, point 73.

  8. 8.

    Cf. Opinion of Advocate General Yves Bot in Joined Cases C-400/09 and C-207/10, Orifarm A/S and Others (C-400/09) and Paranova Danmark A/S and Paranova Pack A/S (C-207/10) v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and Merck Sharp & Dohme BV and Merck Sharp & Dohme, [2011] ECR I-7063, point 40; Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl in Joined Cases C-414/99 to C-416/99, Zino Davidoff SA v. A & G Imports Ltd and Levi Strauss & Co. and Others v. Tesco Stores Ltd and Others, [2001] ECR I-8691, point 117; Joined Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Paranova A/S (C-427/93) and C. H. Boehringer Sohn, Boehringer Ingelheim KG and Boehringer Ingelheim A/S v. Paranova A/S (C-429/93) and Bayer Aktiengesellschaft and Bayer Danmark A/S v. Paranova A/S (C-436/93), [1996] ECR I-3457, point 77; Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Case C-348/04, Boehringer Ingelheim KG and others v. Swingward Ltd and Dowelhurst Ltd, [2007] ECR I-3391, point 13.

  9. 9.

    See supra Sect. 7.3.6.

  10. 10.

    It is reminded that, based on the Court’s case law, the provisions of Articles 7 (2) of Directive 2008/95/ΕC and 13 (2) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 must be interpreted in the same way (see Case C-127/09, Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH v. Simex Trading AG, [2010] ECR I-4965, para. 46, and supra Sect. 8.1.3.2).

  11. 11.

    See Case C-232/94, MPA Pharma GmbH v. Rhône-Poulenc Pharma GmbH, [1996] ECR I-3671, para. 30; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH v. Beiersdorf AG (C-71/94), Boehringer Ingelheim KG (C-72/94) and Farmitalia Carlo Erba GmbH (C-73/94), [1996] ECR I-3603, para. 49; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Paranova A/S (C-427/93) and C. H. Boehringer Sohn, Boehringer Ingelheim KG and Boehringer Ingelheim A/S v. Paranova A/S (C-429/93) and Bayer Aktiengesellschaft and Bayer Danmark A/S v. Paranova A/S (C-436/93), [1996] ECR I-3457, para. 59.

  12. 12.

    See Beier (1995), p. 48; Fezer (1978), p. 605; Fezer (2009), § 24 MarkenG, pp. 1644–1645, Nr. 49; Hefermehl and Fezer (1979), p. 133; Stuckel (1991), p. 131. Contra Sack (1997), p. 5.

  13. 13.

    See supra Sect. 7.3.3.3.

  14. 14.

    So Sack (1997), p. 3.

  15. 15.

    So also Schuster (1998), p. 80.

  16. 16.

    So Schuster (1998), pp. 80–81.

  17. 17.

    See, in relation to the term “Verändern”, Brockhaus Wiesbaden (1994).

  18. 18.

    See, in relation to the term “Verschlechtern”, Drosdowski et al. (1990).

  19. 19.

    Under the WZG, it was argued on an isolated basis that the improvement of the quality of a trademarked product does not constitute a change in its condition justifying the non-applicability of the rule of exhaustion of trademark rights. See Fricke (1977), p. 224. This position was, however, challenged by the most German legal commentators and German case law. See Fezer (2009), § 24 MarkenG, p. 1644, Nr. 47; OLG Köln, GRUR 1998, 54—Mercedes Stern.

  20. 20.

    Cf. Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Paranova A/S (C-427/93) and C. H. Boehringer Sohn, Boehringer Ingelheim KG and Boehringer Ingelheim A/S v. Paranova A/S (C-429/93) and Bayer Aktiengesellschaft and Bayer Danmark A/S v. Paranova A/S (C-436/93), [1996] ECR I-3457, para. 53; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH v. Beiersdorf AG (C-71/94), Boehringer Ingelheim KG (C-72/94) and Farmitalia Carlo Erba GmbH (C-73/94), [1996] ECR I-3603, para. 43; Case C-232/94, MPA Pharma GmbH v. Rhône-Poulenc Pharma GmbH, [1996] ECR I-3671, para. 25.

  21. 21.

    Cf. the facts in Case C-1/81, Pfizer Inc. v. Eurim-Pharm GmbH, [1981] ECR 2913.

  22. 22.

    Cf. the facts in Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 20 above.

  23. 23.

    Cf. Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 20 above, para. 55; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 20 above, para. 45; Case C-232/94, n. 20 above, para. 27.

  24. 24.

    Case C-379/97, Pharmacia & Upjohn SA v. Paranova A/S, [1999] ECR I-6927.

  25. 25.

    Cf. the facts in Case C-348/04, Boehringer Ingelheim KG and Others v. Swingward Ltd and Dowelhurst Ltd, [2007] ECR I-3391.

  26. 26.

    Cf. the facts in Case C-349/95, Frits Loendersloot, trading as F. Loendersloot Internationale Expeditie v. George Ballantine & Son Ltd and Others, [1997] ECR I-6227.

  27. 27.

    Case C-9/93, IHT Internationale Heiztechnik GmbH and UWE Danziger v. Ideal Standard GmbH and Wabco Standard GmbH, [1994] ECR I-2789, paras 34–35.

  28. 28.

    COM (80) 635 final of 27.11.1980, OJ C 351/1 of 31.12.1980, also published in GRUR Int. 1981, 30 (Vorschlag einer ersten Richtlinie des Rates zur Angleichung des Markenrechts der Mitgliedstaaten) and 86 (Vorschlag einer Verordnung des Rates über die Gemeinschaftsmarke—Einleitung).

  29. 29.

    According to Article 11 of the Commission’s “Proposal for a Council Regulation on Community trade marks” and of Article 6 of the Commission’s “Proposal for a first Council Directive to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks”:

    1. 1.

      The trade mark shall not entitle the proprietor thereof to prohibit its use in relating to goods which have been put on the market under that trade mark by the proprietor or with his consent.

    2. 2.

      Paragraph (1) shall not apply:

      1. (a)

        where there are legitimate grounds for opposing importation into the Community of goods put on the market outside it;

      2. (b)

        where the condition of the goods is changed or impaired after they have been put on the market;

      3. (c)

        where the goods are repackaged by a third party (emphasis added).

  30. 30.

    See Stothers (2007), p. 79 n. 161 and 162.

  31. 31.

    Case C-102/77, Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. AG v. Centrafarm Vertriebsgesellschaft Pharmazeutischer Erzeugnisse mbH, [1978] ECR 1139.

  32. 32.

    Case C-1/81, Pfizer Inc. v. Eurim-Pharm GmbH, [1981] ECR 2913.

  33. 33.

    OJ 31.08.1984, C 230/1.

  34. 34.

    OJ 31.12.1985, C 351/4.

  35. 35.

    See the Commission’s “Explanatory Memorandum” to the “Amended Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Community trade mark” [Com (84) 470 final, 31 July 1984], at vii; Commission’s Explanatory Memorandum to the “Amended Proposal for a First Council Directive to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks” [COM (85) 793 final, 17.12.1985], at v.

  36. 36.

    Case C-232/94, MPA Pharma GmbH v. Rhône-Poulenc Pharma GmbH, [1996] ECR I-3671.

  37. 37.

    Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH v. Beiersdorf AG (C-71/94), Boehringer Ingelheim KG (C-72/94) and Farmitalia Carlo Erba GmbH (C-73/94), [1996] ECR I-3603.

  38. 38.

    Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Paranova A/S (C-427/93) and C. H. Boehringer Sohn, Boehringer Ingelheim KG and Boehringer Ingelheim A/S v. Paranova A/S (C-429/93) and Bayer Aktiengesellschaft and Bayer Danmark A/S v. Paranova A/S (C-436/93), [1996] ECR I-3457.

  39. 39.

    Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 36.

  40. 40.

    Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 38.

  41. 41.

    In MPA Pharma and Eurim-Pharm v. Beiersdorf, the questions referred for a preliminary ruling concerned the interpretation of Article 36 of EEC Treaty (now Article 36 of the TFEU) and not the provision of Article 7 (2) of Directive 89/104/ΕEC [now Article 7 (2) of Directive 2008/95/ΕC], most probably because of failure to transpose Directive 89/104/ΕEC into national law on time.

  42. 42.

    In Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Paranova, the questions referred for a preliminary ruling concerned the provision of Article 7 (2) of Directive 89/104/ΕEC [now Article 7 (2) of Directive 2008/95/ΕC].

  43. 43.

    See the operative part of the decisions MPA Pharma (Case C-232/94, n. 36 above) and Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Paranova (Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above).

  44. 44.

    See the operative part of the decision in Eurim-Pharm v. Beiersdorf (Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above).

  45. 45.

    See the operative part of the decision in Eurim-Pharm v. Beiersdorf (Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above).

  46. 46.

    Case C-348/04, Boehringer Ingelheim KG and Others v. Swingward Ltd and Dowelhurst Ltd, [2007] ECR I-3391, para. 60.

  47. 47.

    See the operative part of the judgments in MPA Pharma (Case C-232/94, n. 36 above), Eurim-Pharm v. Beiersdorf (Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above) and Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Paranova (Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above).

  48. 48.

    Case C-348/04, Boehringer Ingelheim KG and Others v. Swingward Ltd and Dowelhurst Ltd, [2007] ECR I-3391.

  49. 49.

    EWHC 110 (Ch) (2003), para. 26.

  50. 50.

    EWCA Civ 129 (2004), para. 78.

  51. 51.

    Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Case C-348/04, n. 48 above, point 40.

  52. 52.

    Case C-348/04, n. 48 above, para. 32.

  53. 53.

    Case C-348/04, n. 48 above, paras 26–28. The Court referred, in particular, to the decision in Case C-143/00, Boehringer Ingelheim KG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma KG, Glaxo Group Ltd, The Wellcome Foundation Ltd, SmithKline Beecham plc, Beecham Group plc, SmithKline & French Laboratories Ltd and Eli Lilly and Co. v. Swingward Ltd and Dowelhurst Ltd, [2002] ECR I-3759, from which it follows that the Court includes the “relabelling” in the concept of “repackaging”.

  54. 54.

    Case C-348/04, n. 48 above, para. 29.

  55. 55.

    Case C-348/04, n. 48 above, para. 30.

  56. 56.

    Case C-16/74, Centrafarm BV and Adriaan de Peijper v. Winthrop BV, [1974] ECR 1183, para. 8.

  57. 57.

    See, in relation to Article 36 of the EEC Treaty (now Article 36 of the TFEU), supra Sect. 7.3.3.4.

  58. 58.

    Cf. also Stothers (2007), p. 82.

  59. 59.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 27; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 45; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 55.

  60. 60.

    See Case C-102/77, n. 31 above, para. 13, where the ECJ said that, subject to consideration of the facts of a particular case, the positions expressed in that decision do not concern exclusively medicinal products.

  61. 61.

    Case C-349/95, Frits Loendersloot v. George Ballantine & Son Ltd etc., [1997] ECR I-6227.

  62. 62.

    Case C-349/95, n. 61 above, para. 27.

  63. 63.

    Case C-349/95, n. 61 above, para. 48.

  64. 64.

    Case C-379/97, Pharmacia & Upjohn SA v. Paranova A/S, [1999] ECR I-6927.

  65. 65.

    Case C-3/78, Centrafarm BV v. American Home Products Corporation, [1978] ECR 1823.

  66. 66.

    Case C-379/97, n. 64 above, para. 27.

  67. 67.

    Case C-379/97, n. 64 above, para. 28.

  68. 68.

    Case C-379/97, n. 64 above, paras 13–22.

  69. 69.

    Case C-379/97, n. 64 above, para. 31.

  70. 70.

    Case C-379/97, n. 64 above, para. 32.

  71. 71.

    Case C-379/97, n. 64 above, para. 37.

  72. 72.

    Case C-379/97, n. 64 above, para. 38.

  73. 73.

    Case C-379/97, n. 64 above, para. 40.

  74. 74.

    According to the ECJ’s case law issued after the adoption of Directive 89/104/EEC, the interventions on the original condition of parallel imported trademarked products described in cases (a)–(f) constitute cases of “repackaging” parallel imported products.

  75. 75.

    Case C-349/95, n. 61 above, para. 51.

  76. 76.

    Case C-102/77, n. 31 above, para. 10.

  77. 77.

    See Schefold (1997), p. 158; Hart and Reich (1990), p. 257.

  78. 78.

    See Ebenroth (1992), pp. 33–34, Nr. 33.

  79. 79.

    So also Beier (1995), p. 49; Brändel (1980); Kleist (1979), p. 26; Röttger (1979); Röttger (1980), p. 248; Röttger (1981); Röttger (1982); van Empel (1979), p. 542.

  80. 80.

    Case C-3/78, n. 65 above, para. 21.

  81. 81.

    See Baumbach and Hefermehl (1985), § 15 WZG, pp. 689–690, Nr. 85; Fezer (1978), pp. 604, 605; Hefermehl and Fezer (1979), p. 37.

  82. 82.

    See Joined Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Case C-232/94 (n. 36 above); Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94 (n. 37 above); Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93 (n. 38 above), [1996] ECR I-3457, points 80–84.

  83. 83.

    See Joined Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, n. 82 above, point 82.

  84. 84.

    See supra section “Replacing the Packaging and Changing the Appearance or Contents of the Outer Packaging of Pharmaceutical Products Imported in Parallel”.

  85. 85.

    See supra section “Replacement of the Trademark and Parallel Imports of Pharmaceuticals and Other Trademarked Products”.

  86. 86.

    Case C-379/97, n. 64 above, para. 40.

  87. 87.

    See Case C-143/00, Boehringer Ingelheim KG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma KG, Glaxo Group Ltd, The Wellcome Foundation Ltd, SmithKline Beecham plc, Beecham Group plc, SmithKline & French Laboratories Ltd and Eli Lilly and Co. v. Swingward Ltd and Dowelhurst Ltd, [2002] ECR I-3759, paras 28–35, in particular para. 32.

  88. 88.

    See Case C-143/00, n. 87 above, in particular paras 29–30.

  89. 89.

    Case C-3/78, n. 65 above, paras 13–14; Case C-379/97, n. 64 above, para. 31.

  90. 90.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 29; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 47; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 57.

  91. 91.

    Cf. Urlesberger (2002), p. 106.

  92. 92.

    Cf. Castillo de la Torre (1997), p. 312; Esche (1987), p. 236; Gloria (1983), p. 903; Urlesberger (2002), p. 106. The difficulty of proving that the trademark proprietor is intended to partition the markets was also acknowledged by the Court in its decision in Upjohn v. Paranova (Case C-379/97, n. 64 above, para. 41), with a reference to the Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in the same case (points 40–42), and by Advocate General Jacobs in his Joined Opinion in Case C-232/94; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 82 above, point 83.

  93. 93.

    Cf. Urlesberger (2002), p. 106. As has been correctly pointed out by Advocate General Jacobs, n. 82 above, point 83: “A parallel importer who wishes to repackage goods needs to be able to determine with a reasonable degree of certainty whether he may lawfully do so”.

  94. 94.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 24; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 42; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 52.

  95. 95.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 25; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 43; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 53.

  96. 96.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 27; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 45; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 55.

  97. 97.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 26; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 44; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 54.

  98. 98.

    Case C-379/97, n. 64 above, para. 43.

  99. 99.

    Case C-379/97, n. 64 above, para. 44.

  100. 100.

    Case C-443/99, Merck, Sharp & Dohme GmbH v. Paranova Pharmazeutika Handels GmbH, [2002] ECR I-3703, para. 28; Case C-143/00, n. 87 above, para. 49.

  101. 101.

    Case C-443/99, n. 100 above, para. 27; Case C-143/00, n. 87 above, para. 48.

  102. 102.

    Case C-443/99, n. 100 above, para. 31; Case C-143/00, n. 87 above, para. 52.

  103. 103.

    Cf. Joined Opinion of Advocate General Gulmann in Case C-443/99 & Case C-143/00, [2002] ECR I-3703, point 110.

  104. 104.

    Case C-348/04, n. 48 above, para. 38; so also Case Ε-3/02, Paranova AS v. Merck & Co., Inc. and Others, [2004] EFTA Court Report 1, paras 41–45.

  105. 105.

    See Case Ε-3/02, n. 104 above, paras 41–45; Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Case C-348/04, n. 48 above, point 51.

  106. 106.

    Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Case C-348/04, n. 48 above, point 54.

  107. 107.

    Case C-276/05, The Wellcome Foundation Ltd v. Paranova Pharmazeutika Handels GmbH, [2008] ECR I-10479.

  108. 108.

    Case C-276/05, n. 107 above, paras 26–30.

  109. 109.

    See, with regard to repackaging, the operative parts of the judgments in MPA Pharma (Case C-232/94, n. 36 above), Eurim-Pharm v. Beiersdorf (Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above), Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Paranova (Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above), and Boehringer Ingelheim and others (Case C-143/00, n. 87 above), while, with regard to the replacement of the trademark, see the operative part of the judgments in Centrafarm (Case C-3/78, n. 65 above) and in Case C-379/97, n. 64 above, para. 31.

  110. 110.

    See, with regard to repackaging, Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 24; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 42; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 52, while, with regard to the replacement of the trademark, see Case C-379/97, n. 64 above, para. 43.

  111. 111.

    See, with regard to repackaging, Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 24; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 42; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 52, while, with regard to the replacement of the trademark, see Case C-379/97, n. 64 above, para. 40.

  112. 112.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 26; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 44; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 54.

  113. 113.

    Cf. Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 25; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 43; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 53; Case C-443/99, n. 100 above, para. 31; Case C-143/00, n. 87 above, para. 52; Joined Opinion of Advocate General Gulmann, n. 103 above, point 110.

  114. 114.

    See, with regard to repackaging, Case C-443/99, n. 100 above, para. 27; Case C-143/00, n. 87 above, para. 48, while, with regard to the replacement of the trademark, see Case C-379/97, n. 64 above, para. 44.

  115. 115.

    Case C-348/04, n. 48 above, para. 39; Case C-276/05, n. 107 above, para. 30.

  116. 116.

    See, with regard to repackaging, Case C-443/99, n. 100 above, para. 32; Case C-143/00, n. 87 above, para. 53, while, with regard to the replacement of the trademark, see Case C-379/97, n. 64 above, para. 45.

  117. 117.

    See supra section “Affixing a New Label to the Original Packaging—Adding New Instructions for Use or Information to the Original Packaging—Replacing the Additional Article Included in the Original Packaging of Pharmaceutical Products Imported in Parallel”.

  118. 118.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 28; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 46; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 56.

  119. 119.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 27; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 45; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 55; Case C-443/99, n. 100 above, para. 28; Case C-143/00, n. 87 above, para. 49.

  120. 120.

    Cf. Stothers (2007), p. 96.

  121. 121.

    Cf. Hays (2004), p. 113, para. 3.71.

  122. 122.

    Case C-102/77, n. 31 above, para. 7.

  123. 123.

    Case C-102/77, n. 31 above, para. 10.

  124. 124.

    Case C-102/77, n. 31 above, para. 10.

  125. 125.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 31; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 49; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 59.

  126. 126.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 35; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 53; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 63.

  127. 127.

    See also Schuster (1998), pp. 105–106.

  128. 128.

    Case C-102/77, n. 31 above, para. 10; Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 31; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 49; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 59.

  129. 129.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 32; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 50; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 60.

  130. 130.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 36; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 55; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 64.

  131. 131.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 37; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 56; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 65.

  132. 132.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 38; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, paras 54 and 57; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 66.

  133. 133.

    Case C-102/77, n. 31 above, para. 12.

  134. 134.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 42; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 61; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 70.

  135. 135.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 45; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 64; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 74.

  136. 136.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 43; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 62; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 71.

  137. 137.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 44; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 63; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 72.

  138. 138.

    Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 73.

  139. 139.

    Case C-102/77, n. 31 above, para. 7. Cf. Case C-10/89, SA CNL-SUCAL NV v HAG GF AG, [1990] ECR I-3711, para. 13; Case C-9/93, n. 27 above, para. 37.

  140. 140.

    Joined Cases C-400/09 and C-207/10, Orifarm A/S and Others (C-400/09) and Paranova Danmark A/S and Paranova Pack A/S (C-207/10) v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and Merck Sharp & Dohme BV and Merck Sharp & Dohme, [2011] ECR I-7063.

  141. 141.

    It is worth pointing out that the Court had expressed this view indirectly in a previous decision and more specifically in the decision in Case C-349/95, n. 61 above, para. 30, where the ECJ refers to the obligation of stating the person in charge of repackaging.

  142. 142.

    Joined Cases C-400/09 and C-207/10, n. 140 above, para. 29; Opinion of Advocate General Yves Bot in Joined Cases C-400/09 and C-207/10, n. 140 above, points 34 and 35.

  143. 143.

    Opinion of Advocate General Yves Bot in Joined Cases C-400/09 and C-207/10, n. 140 above, in particular point 43.

  144. 144.

    Joined Cases C-400/09 and C-207/10, n. 140 above, para. 30.

  145. 145.

    Joined Cases C-400/09 and C-207/10, n. 140 above, para. 30.

  146. 146.

    Case C-349/95, n. 61 above, para. 48.

  147. 147.

    See supra section “Assessing the Legality of Parallel Imports in the Light of the Origin Function of the Trademark”.

  148. 148.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 43; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 62; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 71.

  149. 149.

    See the definition of the subject matter of the trademark right provided by the Court in the decision in Case C-16/74, n. 56 above, para. 8.

  150. 150.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 39; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 58; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 67.

  151. 151.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 46; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 65; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 75.

  152. 152.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 46; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 65; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 75.

  153. 153.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 47; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 66; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 76.

  154. 154.

    Case C-337/95, Parfums Christian Dior SA and Parfums Christian Dior BV v. Evora BV, [1997] ECR I-6013, para. 45.

  155. 155.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 48; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 67; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 77.

  156. 156.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 47; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 66; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 76.

  157. 157.

    Case C-348/04, n. 48 above, paras 41–44.

  158. 158.

    Case C-348/04, n. 48 above, paras 45–47. On the legality of affixing the trademark of the parallel importer to the parallel imported goods and removing the (original) trademark borne by the parallel imported goods, see infra Sects. 10.2.2.4 and 10.2.2.5.

  159. 159.

    Cf. Case C-324/09, L’Oréal SA and Others v. eBay International AG and Others, L’Oréal SA and Others v. eBay International AG and Others, [2011] ECR I-6011, in particular paras 78–79.

  160. 160.

    Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen in Case C-324/09, n. 159 above, point 76.

  161. 161.

    See the operative part of the judgments in MPA Pharma (Case C-232/94, n. 36 above), Eurim-Pharm v. Beiersdorf (Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above) and Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Paranova (Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above) as well as Case C-348/04, n. 48 above, para. 40.

  162. 162.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 46; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 65; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 75.

  163. 163.

    It is noted that the trademarks borne by the parallel imported products considered in the MPA Pharma (Case C-232/94, n. 36 above), Eurim-Pharm v. Beiersdorf (Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above), and Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Paranova (Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above) decisions were not trademarks that had a reputation.

  164. 164.

    Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Case C-348/04, n. 48 above, point 63. See infra Sect. 10.2.2.2.

  165. 165.

    Case C-348/04, n. 48 above, para. 46.

  166. 166.

    Case C-102/77, n. 31 above, para. 12.

  167. 167.

    Case C-143/00, n. 87 above, para. 63.

  168. 168.

    Case C-143/00, n. 87 above, para. 64.

  169. 169.

    Case C-143/00, n. 87 above, para. 67.

  170. 170.

    Case C-143/00, n. 87 above, para. 66.

  171. 171.

    Case C-276/05, n. 107 above, para. 34.

  172. 172.

    Case C-276/05, n. 107 above, para. 35.

  173. 173.

    Case C-276/05, n. 107 above, para. 36.

  174. 174.

    Regarding the cumulative application of Articles 30–36 of the EEC Treaty (now Articles 34–36 of the TFEU) and 85–86 of the EEC Treaty (now Articles 101–102 of the TFEU), see Ebenroth and Hübschle (1994), p. 144; Schödermeier (1987), p. 88. As has been expressly stated by the Court, the general principles of the EEC Treaty (now TFEU), the general rules of the EEC Treaty (now TFEU), including the rules on the free movement of goods, must be applied in so far as they are not excluded. See Case C-167/73, Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic, [1974] ECR 359, para. 28.

  175. 175.

    Case C-349/95, n. 61 above, para. 48.

  176. 176.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 49; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 69; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 78.

  177. 177.

    Case C-349/95, n. 61 above, para. 41.

  178. 178.

    Case C-349/95, n. 61 above, para. 41.

  179. 179.

    Case C-349/95, n. 61 above, para. 40.

  180. 180.

    Case C-349/95, n. 61 above, para. 43.

  181. 181.

    Case C-349/95, n. 61 above, para. 42.

  182. 182.

    Cf. Ebenroth (1992), pp. 33–34, Νr. 33.

  183. 183.

    Case C-349/95, n. 61 above, para. 40.

  184. 184.

    Case C-349/95, n. 61 above, para. 43.

  185. 185.

    See supra section “Fifth Condition: The Importer Gives Notice to the Trademark Owner Before the Repackaged Product Is Put on Sale, and, on Demand, Supplies Him with a Specimen of the Repackaged Product”.

  186. 186.

    The likelihood of a serious damage to the reputation of the trademark borne by a parallel imported product due to the removal or elimination of the identification numbers placed on the product by the trademark proprietor is also mentioned in the Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl in Joined Cases C-414/99 to C-416/99, Zino Davidoff SA v. A & G Imports Ltd and Levi Strauss & Co. and Others v. Tesco Stores Ltd and Others, [2001] ECR I-8691, points 118–121. See also Unglaub (2001), pp. 209–210.

  187. 187.

    With regard to the allocation of the burden of proof in cases concerning the application of Article 7 (2) of Directive 2008/95/ΕC and Article 13 (2) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 see infra Sect. 10.5.3.

  188. 188.

    Case C-59/08, Copad SA v. Christian Dior couture SA, Vincent Gladel and Société industrielle lingerie (SIL), [2009] ECR I-3421, paras 57–58. See infra Sect. 10.3.3.

  189. 189.

    See supra section “Affixing a New Label to the Original Packaging—Adding New Instructions for Use or Information to the Original Packaging—Replacing the Additional Article Included in the Original Packaging of Pharmaceutical Products Imported in Parallel”.

  190. 190.

    Case C-348/04, n. 48 above, paras 45–47. It is to be reminded that the concept of “reputation” in this context is wide in scope, i.e. the considerations made by the ECJ in relation to the fourth condition set out in the decisions in MPA Pharma, Eurim-Pharm v. Beiersdorf and Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Paranov cover not only trademarks with a reputation within the meaning of Articles 4 (3) and (4) (a) and 5 (2) of Directive 89/104/EEC [now Articles 4 (3) and (4) (a) and 5 (2) of Directive 2008/95/EC] and Articles 8 (5) and 9 (1) (c) of Regulation (EC) 40/94 [now Articles 8 (5) and 9 (1) (c) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009] but also common trademarks. See supra section “Fourth Condition: The Presentation of the Repackaged Product Is Not Such as to Be Liable to Damage the Reputation of the Trademark and of Its Owner”.

  191. 191.

    Case Ε-3/02, n. 104 above, paras 54–56.

  192. 192.

    Case C-348/04, n. 48 above, para. 46.

  193. 193.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 39; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 58; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 67.

  194. 194.

    Cf. Case C-63/97, Bayerische Motorenwerke AG (BMW) and BMW Nederland BV v. Ronald Karel Deenik, [1999] ECR I-905, para. 51; Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Case C-348/04, n. 48 above, point 63.

  195. 195.

    Case C-63/97, n. 194 above, paras 51 and 52. See infra Sect. 10.3.2.

  196. 196.

    See supra n. 188.

  197. 197.

    See supra n. 190.

  198. 198.

    Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Case C-348/04, n. 48 above, point 63.

  199. 199.

    See supra n. 192.

  200. 200.

    Case C-558/08, Portakabin Ltd and Portakabin BV v. Primakabin BV, [2010] ECR I-6963.

  201. 201.

    Case C-558/08, n. 200 above, para. 86.

  202. 202.

    Case C-558/08, n. 200 above, para. 86.

  203. 203.

    See supra n. 188.

  204. 204.

    It is submitted that the term “reputation” does refer not only to the reputation of “trademarks with a reputation” but also to the reputation of common trademarks. Cf. supra section “Fourth Condition: The Presentation of the Repackaged Product Is Not Such as to Be Liable to Damage the Reputation of the Trademark and of Its Owner”.

  205. 205.

    See supra Sect. 1.1.

  206. 206.

    See Althammer (1989), § 15, Νr. 8; Baumbach and Hefermehl (1985), § 15, Νr. 17 and 47; Busse and Starck (1990), § 15, Νr. 14; von Gamm (1965), § 15, Νr. 20; Waibel (1977a), p. 182.

  207. 207.

    See Schuster (1998), pp. 62–63. Such a repair or reprocessing is, for instance, the replacement of a totally burnt lamp or a rusty fender of a car. Indeed, the lamp or the fender of a car is not directly linked to the functioning of the car.

  208. 208.

    See Schuster (1998), pp. 63–64.

  209. 209.

    Cf. Schuster (1998), p. 63.

  210. 210.

    Cf. Schuster (1998), p. 62.

  211. 211.

    Decker (1940), p. 127; Waibel (1977a), p. 183.

  212. 212.

    Cf. Schuster (1998), p. 63.

  213. 213.

    Cf. Schuster (1998), p. 63.

  214. 214.

    Schuster (1998), p. 64.

  215. 215.

    Waibel (1977a), p. 183; BGH GRUR 1990, 678, 679—Herstellerkennzeichen auf Unfallwagen.

  216. 216.

    Cf. Schuster (1998), pp. 64–65.

  217. 217.

    So also Schuster (1998), pp. 64–65.

  218. 218.

    Baumbach and Hefermehl (1985), § 15, Νr. 17 and 47; Waibel (1977a), p. 182.

  219. 219.

    BGH GRUR 1990, 678—Herstellerkennzeichen auf Unfallwagen.

  220. 220.

    OLG München WRP 1993, 47—Aufgearbeitete Kupplungen.

  221. 221.

    RGZ 161, 29, 41—Zählerersatzteile (also “Isaria”); RG GRUR 1942, 79, 82—Siemens.

  222. 222.

    BGH GRUR 1996, 271—Gefärbte Jeans.

  223. 223.

    OLG Köln GRUR 1998, 54—Mercedes-Stern.

  224. 224.

    So also Schuster (1998), p. 66.

  225. 225.

    So also Schuster (1998), p. 67.

  226. 226.

    So also Schuster (1998), p. 66.

  227. 227.

    BGH GRUR 1988, 213, 215—Griffband.

  228. 228.

    Cf. OLG Stuttgart, WRP 1995, 248, 254—Rolex.

  229. 229.

    BGH GRUR 1996, 271, 274—Gefärbte Jeans.

  230. 230.

    OLG Hamburg, WRP 1994, 122—Jeansüberfärbungen; OLG Köln, GRUR 1991, 51, 52—Nachträgliche Jeans-Bleichung.

  231. 231.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 31; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 49; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 59.

  232. 232.

    Case C-102/77, n. 31 above, para. 10; Case C-232/94, n. 36 above, para. 31; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 49; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 59.

  233. 233.

    Case C-232/94, n. 36, para. 35; Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94, n. 37 above, para. 53; Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93, n. 38 above, para. 63.

  234. 234.

    See also Schuster (1998), p. 67.

  235. 235.

    RGZ 161, 29, 41—Zählerersatzteile (also Isaria); RG GRUR 1942, 79, 83—Siemens.

  236. 236.

    OLG München, WRP 1993, 47, 48—Aufgearbeitete Kupplung.

  237. 237.

    See also Schuster (1998), p. 68.

  238. 238.

    BGH GRUR 1990, 678, 679—Herstellerkennzeichen auf Unfallwagen.

  239. 239.

    For example, in cases where a car’s lamps have been replaced.

  240. 240.

    So also Schuster (1998), pp. 68–69.

  241. 241.

    See supra section “Deterioration in the Quality Level of a Trademarked Good”.

  242. 242.

    BGH GRUR 1996, 271, 274—Gefärbte Jeans.

  243. 243.

    LG Hamburg WRP 1993, 716, 718—Überfärbte “LEVI’S 501”; OLG Hamburg WRP 1994, 122—Jeansüberfärbungen.

  244. 244.

    For example, the blue colour refers to the trademark “Levis”, while the black one to the trademark “Wrangler”. The association of the colour of Jeans with the goodwill of the trademark borne by such products is due to the fact that such trousers incorporate specific consumer standards such as the standards of “an American way of life”, “Wild West”, independence, or individualism. See Schuster (1998), p. 72.

  245. 245.

    See also Schuster (1998), pp. 72–73.

  246. 246.

    See also Schuster (1998), p. 73.

  247. 247.

    See supra section “Deterioration in the Quality Level of a Trademarked Good”.

  248. 248.

    See also Schuster (1998), pp. 73–74.

  249. 249.

    On this view, see Decker (1940), p. 126; Kohler (1909), p. 172; von Gamm (1965), § 15, Νr. 28; Waibel (1977b), p. 193.

  250. 250.

    On this view, see RGZ 161, 29, 41—Zählerersatzteile (also Isaria).

  251. 251.

    See, from German case law, RGZ 161, 29, 43—Zählerersatzteile (also “Isaria”); BGH GRUR 1990, 678, 680—Herstellerkennzeichen auf Unfallwagen; OLG München, WRP 1993, 47, 48—Aufgearbeitete Kupplung; BGH GRUR 1996, 271, 275—Gefärbte Jeans; see also von Gamm (1965), § 15, Νr. 20; Waibel (1977b), p. 197.

  252. 252.

    Schuster (1998), p. 75.

  253. 253.

    See supra section “Second Condition: The Repackaging Cannot Affect the Original Condition of the Product Inside the Packaging”.

  254. 254.

    Cf. the facts in Case C-63/97, Bayerische Motorenwerke AG (BMW) and BMW Nederland BV v. Ronald Karel Deenik, [1999] ECR I-905.

  255. 255.

    See supra section “Third Condition: The New Packaging Clearly States Who Repackaged the Product and the Name of the Manufacturer”.

  256. 256.

    It is to be noted that, in the context of the ECJ’s case law on the legality of parallel imports of trademarked pharmaceutical products, the term “reputation” is wide in scope, namely the term refers not only to trademarks with a reputation within the meaning of Articles 4 (3) and (4) (a) and 5 (2) of Directive 89/104/EEC [now Articles 4 (3) and (4) (a) and 5 (2) of Directive 2008/95/EC] and Articles 8 (5) and 9 (1) (c) of Regulation (EC) 40/94 [now Articles 8 (5) and 9 (1) (c) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009] but also to common trademarks.

  257. 257.

    Case C-337/95, Parfums Christian Dior SA and Parfums Christian Dior BV v. Evora BV, [1997] ECR I-6013.

  258. 258.

    Case C-337/95, n. 257 above, para. 37. The freedom of independent traders to use the marks borne by parallel imported products in their advertising has been especially stressed by the Court. See Case C-373/90, Criminal proceedings against X, [1992] ECR I-131, para. 12 and Case C-44/01, Pippig Augenoptik GmbH & Co. KG v. Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Verlassenschaft nach dem verstorbenen Franz Josef Hartlauer, [2003] ECR I-3095, para. 63.

  259. 259.

    Case C-337/95, n. 257 above, para. 46.

  260. 260.

    Case C-337/95, n. 257 above, paras 44 and 46.

  261. 261.

    Case C-337/95, n. 257 above, para. 45.

  262. 262.

    Case C-337/95, n. 257 above, para. 44, which refers to a use of the trademark that “could damage” its reputation.

  263. 263.

    Case C-337/95, n. 257 above, para. 47.

  264. 264.

    Case C-63/97, Bayerische Motorenwerke AG (BMW) and BMW Nederland BV v. Ronald Karel Deenik, [1999] ECR I-905.

  265. 265.

    Case C-16/74, n. 56 above, para. 8. See also Case C-63/97, n. 264 above, para. 52, with a reference to the HAG II decision, which confirms the definition of the specific subject matter of the trademark right given in the Centrafarm v. Winthrop judgment.

  266. 266.

    Case C-63/97, n. 264 above, para. 52.

  267. 267.

    Case C-63/97, n. 264 above, para. 51.

  268. 268.

    Case C-63/97, n. 264 above, para. 53.

  269. 269.

    Case C-558/08, Portakabin Ltd and Portakabin BV v. Primakabin BV, [2010] ECR I-6963.

  270. 270.

    Case C-558/08, n. 269 above, para. 84.

  271. 271.

    Case C-558/08, n. 269 above, para. 84.

  272. 272.

    Case C-558/08, n. 269 above, para. 91.

  273. 273.

    Cf. Case C-337/95, n. 257 above, paras 44 and 46.

  274. 274.

    Case C-59/08, Copad SA v Christian Dior couture SA, Vincent Gladel and Société industrielle lingerie (SIL), [2009] ECR I-3421, paras 55–56.

  275. 275.

    Case C-59/08, n. 274 above, para. 57.

  276. 276.

    Case C-59/08, n. 274 above, para. 56, which refers to a use of the trademark that “could damage” its reputation.

  277. 277.

    Case C-59/08, n. 274 above, para. 58.

  278. 278.

    Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Case C-337/95, n. 257 above, point 52.

  279. 279.

    See also Unglaub (2001), pp. 204–205.

  280. 280.

    Cf. Case C-348/04, n. 48 above, paras 45–47.

  281. 281.

    Cf. Case C-324/09, L’Oréal SA and Others v. eBay International AG and Others, [2011] ECR I-6011, in particular paras 78–79.

  282. 282.

    Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen in Case C-324/09, n. 281 above, point 76.

  283. 283.

    Cf. Case C-63/97, n. 264 above, para. 51.

  284. 284.

    See Antonopoulos (2005), p. 480, Nr. 594; Marinos (1996), p. 237, Nr. 52; Rokas (1993).

  285. 285.

    Cf. Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston in Case C-348/04, n. 48 above, point 63.

  286. 286.

    Cf. Case C-337/95, n. 257 above, para. 44; Case C-59/08, n. 274 above, para. 56.

  287. 287.

    Case C-63/97, n. 264 above, para. 51.

  288. 288.

    Case C-337/95, n. 257 above, para. 46; Case C-558/08, n. 269 above, para. 91.

  289. 289.

    Case C-59/08, n. 274 above, para. 57.

  290. 290.

    Case C-337/95, n. 257 above, para. 48; Case C-63/97, n. 264 above, para. 55; Case C-59/08, n. 274 above, para. 57; Case C-558/08, n. 269 above, para. 93.

  291. 291.

    See Fezer (2009), § 24 MarkenG, p. 1653, Νr. 68; Sack (1999), pp. 470–471; Schuster (1998), pp. 214, 218. Nevertheless, it is stressed that, when WZG was in force, the dominant view in German legal literature rejected the protection of selective distribution systems against disruptions by independent traders under trademark law. See Baumbach and Hefermehl (1985), § 15 WZG, p. 678, Nr. 68; Stuckel (1991), p. 193; Ulmer (1987), p. 302.

  292. 292.

    Schuster (1998), pp. 214, 218.

  293. 293.

    Fezer (2009), § 24 MarkenG, p. 1653, Νr. 68. Fezer argued, on many occasions, in favour of protecting the imperviousness of selective distribution systems in the light of trademark law. See Fezer (1990, 1991, 1999).

  294. 294.

    Sack (1999), pp. 470–471.

  295. 295.

    Case C-41/96, VAG-Händlerbeirat eV v. SYD-Consult, [1997] ECR I-3123, paras 13–14.

  296. 296.

    OJ L 102/1, of 23.04.2010. Regulation 330/2010 replaced Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2790/1999 of 22 December 1999 “on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices” (OJ L 336/21, of 29.12.1999).

  297. 297.

    Cf. also Unglaub (2001), p. 218.

  298. 298.

    Cf. also Unglaub (2001), p. 220.

  299. 299.

    Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 123/85 of 12 December 1984 “on the application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements” (OJ L 15/16, of 18.01.1985). Regulation (EEC) No. 123/85 has been repealed and replaced by Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 “on the application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements” (OJ L 145/25, of 29.06.1995).

  300. 300.

    Case C-226/94, Grand Garage Albigeois SA, Etablissements Marlaud SA, Rossi Automobiles SA, Albi Automobiles SA, Garage Maurel & Fils SA, Sud Auto SA, Grands garages de Castres, Garage Pirola SA, Grand Garage de la Gare, Mazametaine automobile SA, Etablissements Capmartin SA and Graulhet Automobiles SA v. Garage Massol SARL, [1996] ECR I-651, paras 17–18; Case C-309/94, Nissan France SA, Serda SA, Lyon Vaise Auto SARL, Garage Gambetta SA and Lyon Automobiles SA v. Jean-Luc Dupasquier du Garage Sport Auto, Star’Terre SARL and Aqueducs Automobiles SARL, [1996] ECR I-677, paras 17–18; Case C-128/95, Fontaine SA, Garage Laval SA, Fahy SA, Renault Lyon Ouest FLB Automobiles SA, Diffusion Vallis Auto SA and Horizon Sud SA v. Aqueducs Automobiles SARL, [1997] ECR I-967, paras 14–15.

  301. 301.

    Cf. also Unglaub (2001), pp. 219–220.

  302. 302.

    See supra n. 174.

  303. 303.

    Case C-167/73, Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic, [1974] ECR 359, para. 28.

  304. 304.

    Case C-349/95, n. 61 above, para. 43; Case C-276/05, n. 107 above, para. 36.

  305. 305.

    On the doctrine of subject matter of the trademark right, see supra Sect. 7.3.3.

  306. 306.

    So also Unglaub (2001), p. 215. As for the acquisition of goods by parallel importers see supra Sect. 1.1.

  307. 307.

    Cf. Case C-58/80, Dansk Supermarked A/S v. A/S Imerco, [1981] ECR 181, para. 17.

  308. 308.

    The need for taking into consideration the specific circumstances of each individual case when applying Article 7 (2) of Directive 89/104/ΕEC [now Article 7 (2) of Directive 2008/95/ΕC] has been stressed on several occasions by the Court. See Case C-337/95, n. 257 above, para. 46; Case C-63/97, n. 264 above, para. 55; Case C-59/08, n. 274 above, para. 57; Case C-558/08, n. 269 above, para. 91.

  309. 309.

    Cf. with regard to Article 7 (2) of Directive 89/104/ΕEC [now Article 7 (2) of Directive 2008/95/ΕC], Case C-348/04, n. 48 above, para. 59.

  310. 310.

    Cf. with regard to Article 7 (2) of Directive 89/104/ΕEC [now Article 7 (2) of Directive 2008/95/ΕC], Case C-348/04, n. 48 above, para. 63.

  311. 311.

    Cf. with regard to Article 7 (2) of Directive 89/104/ΕEC [now Article 7 (2) of Directive 2008/95/ΕC], Case C-348/04, n. 48 above, para. 63.

  312. 312.

    See Case C-58/80, Dansk Supermarked A/S v. A/S Imerco, [1981] ECR 181, paras 16 and 17; Case C-22/71, Béguelin Import Co. v. S.A.G.L. Import Export, [1971] ECR 949, para. 15.

  313. 313.

    Case C-9/93, n. 27 above, para. 38.

  314. 314.

    Case C-9/93, n. 27 above, para. 37.

  315. 315.

    Case C-102/77, n. 31 above, para. 7.

  316. 316.

    Case C-9/93, n. 27 above, para. 39.

  317. 317.

    See supra section “Assessing the Legality of Parallel Imports in the Light of the Guarantee Function of the Trademark”.

  318. 318.

    See Schuster (1998), pp. 180–181. The obligation of the parallel importer to make the differences of the products he markets from the identical or similar products already in circulation in the market of the importing country known to consumers/end users has been acknowledged directly by the German courts and indirectly by the ECJ. Nevertheless, failure to fulfil that obligation does not produce effects under trademark law. See BGH GRUR 1973, 463, 471—Cinzano; Case C-373/90, Criminal proceedings against X, [1992] ECR I-131, para. 16. It is worth mentioning that British case law has also recognised that the parallel importation of products whose quality level differs from that of the identical or similar products already in circulation in the domestic market may be prevented if the parallel imported products are not distinguishable by the consumer or if the difference in the quality level between the parallel imported products and the identical or similar products already in circulation in the domestic market is not irrelevant or de minimis. See the excerpt from the Revlon/Cripps & Lee decision [(1980) FSR 85 (C.A.)] cited in Wadlow (2004), p. 463, para. 7.58.

  319. 319.

    Cf. Opinion of Advocate General Gulmann in Case C-9/93, n. 27 above, points 100–101. On that assumption, see in detail Marinos (2007).

  320. 320.

    So also Stamatoudi (1999), p. 103.

  321. 321.

    Case C-337/95, n. 257 above, paras 55–57.

  322. 322.

    Case C-337/95, n. 257 above, para. 57.

  323. 323.

    Case C-337/95, n. 257 above, para. 58.

  324. 324.

    So also Stamatoudi (1999), pp. 104–105.

  325. 325.

    Case C-337/95, n. 257 above, para. 56; Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Case C-337/95, n. 257 above, point 59.

  326. 326.

    With regard to patent rights, see, in particular, Case C-187/80, Merck & Co. Inc. v. Stephar BV and Petrus Stephanus Exler, [1981] ECR 2063, para. 10; Joined Cases C-267/95 and C-268/95, Merck & Co. Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd and Merck Sharp & Dohme International Services BV v. Primecrown Ltd, Ketan Himatlal Mehta, Bharat Himatlal Mehta and Necessity Supplies Ltd and Beecham Group plc v. Europharm of Worthing Ltd, [1996] ECR I-6285, para. 31, while with regard to copyright, see, in particular, Joined Cases C-55/80 and C-57/80, Musik-Vertrieb membran GmbH and K-tel International v. GEMA – Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte, [1981] ECR 147, para. 25.

  327. 327.

    It is stressed that those requirements may vary. Therefore, for instance, for the exclusive right flowing from a trademark to be exhausted, it suffices that a product bearing the trademark is put on the market within the meaning of Article 7 (1) of Directive 2008/95/EC and Article 13 (1) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009, while the exhaustion of the right to distribute items embodying copyright requires the transfer of ownership of the items pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 2001/29/ΕC.

  328. 328.

    So also Stamatoudi (1999), p. 105.

  329. 329.

    Case C-337/95, n. 257 above, para. 58.

  330. 330.

    Case C-337/95, n. 257 above, para. 58.

  331. 331.

    Case C-348/04, n. 48 above, para. 52.

  332. 332.

    Case C-348/04, n. 48 above, para. 51.

  333. 333.

    Case C-348/04, n. 48 above, para. 49.

  334. 334.

    Case C-348/04, n. 48 above, para. 54.

  335. 335.

    Case C-348/04, n. 48 above, para. 54.

  336. 336.

    Case C-337/95, n. 257 above, para. 48; Case C-63/97, n. 264 above, para. 55; Case C-59/08, n. 274 above, para. 57; Case C-558/08, n. 269 above, para. 93.

  337. 337.

    Case C-324/09, n. 281 above, para. 83. Advocate General Jääskinen disagrees without providing any specific statement of reasons in his Opinion in the same case (point 80).

References

  • Althammer W (1989) Warenzeichengesetz, 4th edn. Heymann, Köln

    Google Scholar 

  • Antonopoulos V (2005) Industrial property, 2nd edn. Sakkoulas Publications, Thessaloniki (in Greek)

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumbach A, Hefermehl W (1985) Warenzeichenrecht und Internationales Wettbewerbs- und Warenzeichenrecht, 12th edn. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Beier F-K (1995) Objektive oder subjektive Marktabschottung? Ein Beitrag zur Auslegung des Art 36 Satz 2 EGV. In: Baur JF, Jacobs R, Lieb M, Müller-Graff P-C (eds) Festschrift für Ralf Vieregge. Walter de Gryter, Berlin, pp 43–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Brändel OC (1980) Die gemeinschaftlichen Missbrauchstatbestände bei der Ausübung nationaler Schutzrechte (Art 36 Satz 2 EWGV). GRUR 82:512–515

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockhaus Wiesbaden FA (Firm) (ed) (1994) Brockhaus Enzyklopädie: in vierundzwanzig Bänden, 19 Auflage

    Google Scholar 

  • Busse R, Starck J (1990) Warenzeichengesetz: nebst Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft und Madrider Abkommen, Kommentar, 6th edn. de Gryter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Castillo de la Torre F (1997) Trade marks and free movement of pharmaceuticals in the European community: to partition or not to partition the market. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 19:304–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Decker (1940) Aufarbeitungsbetriebe und fremde Warenzeichen. GRUR 42:124–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Drosdowski G, Müller W, Scholtze-Stubenrecht W, Wermke M (eds) (1990) Duden Fremdwörterbuch in 10 Bänden, 5 Auflage. Dudenverlag

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebenroth C-T (1992) Gewerblicher Rechtschutz und europäische Warenverkehrsfreiheit. Recht und Wirtschaft, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebenroth C-T, Hübschle W (1994) Gewerbliche Schutzrechte und Marktaufteilung im Binnenmarkt der Europäischen Union. Recht und Wirtschaft, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Esche Τ (1987) Spannungsverhältnis zwischen der Ausübung nationaler Zeichenrechte zur Abwehr von Reimporten und Querlieferungen und dem Grundsatz des freien Warenverkehrs in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, Art 30 EWG – Vertrag. WRP 33:233–236

    Google Scholar 

  • Fezer K-H (1978) Anmerkung zur Hoffmann – La Roche/Centrafarm Entscheidung. GRUR 80:604–605

    Google Scholar 

  • Fezer K-H (1990) Vertriebsbindungen als Unternehmensleistung. GRUR 92:551–567

    Google Scholar 

  • Fezer K-H (1991) Die Wettbewerbsrechtliche Schutz der unternehmerischen Leistung. In: Beier FK, Deutscher Vereinigung für Gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht et all (eds) Festschrift zum hundertjährigen Bestehen der Deutschen Vereinigung für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht und ihrer Zeitschrift Band II. VCH, Weinheim, pp 939–970

    Google Scholar 

  • Fezer K-H (1999) Wettbewerbsrechtlicher und markenrechtlicher Bestandsschutz funktionsfähiger Distributionssysteme selektiven Vertriebs vor Außenseiterwettbewerb – Die Bedeutung der Rechtsprechung des EuGH für die Vertriebsbindungssysteme in den Mitgliedstaaten der EU. GRUR 101:99–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Fezer K-H (2009) Markenrecht, Kommentar zum Markengesetz, zur Pariser Verbandsübeinkunft und zum Madrider Markenabkommen, Dokumentation des nationalen, europäischen und internationalen Kennzeichenrechts, 4th edn. Beck, Μünchen

    Google Scholar 

  • Fricke F-W (1977) Parallelimporte von Markenwaren und freier Warenverkehr innerhalb der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft. WRP 23:217–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Gloria C (1983) Der “subjektive Faktor” bei der Frage des Vorliegens einer verschleierten Handelsbeschränkung im Sinn des Art 36 Satz 2 EWGV. RIW 29:898–905

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart D, Reich N (1990) Integration und Recht des Arzneimittelmarktes in der EG – Eine Untersuchung zum Produkt- und Markenrecht der Gemeinschaft und ausgewählter Mitgliedstaaten. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Hays T (2004) Parallel importation under European Union law. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hefermehl W, Fezer KH (1979) Der Schutz der Marke im Gemeinsamen Markt. In: Hefermehl W, Ipsen P, Schluep WR, Sieben G (eds) Nationaler Markenschutz und freier Warenverkehr in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft. Beck, München, pp 1–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleist H (1979) Warenzeichenfragen beim Parallelimport von Arzneimitteln – Die Auslegung der Artikel 30, 36 EWG – Vertrag in den Centrafarm – Entscheidungen des Europäischen Gerichtshofs. WRP 25:23–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler J (1909) Markenbezeichnung einer produzierenden Maschine. Mittelbare Markenverletzung. GRUR 11:171–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Marinos M-T (1996) Article 20. In: Rokas N (ed) Trade mark law. Nomiki Vivliothiki Publications, Athens

    Google Scholar 

  • Marinos M-T (2007) Modern trade-mark law and protection of the consumers: a myth or an alibi? ChrID 865–872 (in Greek)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rokas N (1993) Note on Monomeles Protodikeio Athinon 12029/1993. EEmpD 481–486 (in Greek)

    Google Scholar 

  • Röttger M (1979) Die Bedeutung von Art 36 Satz 2 EG – Vertrag – Eine Stellungnahme zu den Urteilen des Europäischen Gerichtshofes in Sachen Hoffmann – La Roche/Centrafarm und Centrafarm/American Home Products Corp. WRP 25:292–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Röttger M (1980) Die Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofes zur Bedeutung der nationalen gewerblichen Schutzrechte im Gemeinschaftsrecht – Bringt die AHPC-Entscheidung die endgültige Lösung? WRP 26:243–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Röttger M (1981) Die Auslegung des Art 36 Satz 2 EWGV im Lichte neuer Entscheidungen deutscher Gerichte. GRUR Int 30:619–621

    Google Scholar 

  • Röttger M (1982) Das Vibramycin – Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofs und die “verschleierte Beschränkung” im Sinne des Art 36 Satz 2 EWG – Vertrag. GRUR Int 31:512–515

    Google Scholar 

  • Sack R (1997) Zeichenrechtliche Grenzen des Umpackens fremder Waren. GRUR 99:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Sack R (1999) Markenrechtlicher Schutz von Vertriebsbindungen. WRP 45:467–474

    Google Scholar 

  • Schefold CP (1997) Der “graue” Gemeinsame Markt pharmazeutischer Markenartikel. Shaker, Aachen

    Google Scholar 

  • Schödermeier M (1987) Die Ernte der “Maissaat”: Einige Anmerkungen zum Verhältnis von Art. 30 und 85 EWGV. GRUR Int 36:85–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuster S (1998) Die Ausnahmen vom markenrechtlichen Erschöpfungsgrundsatz. Lang, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamatoudi I (1999) From drugs to spirits and from boxes to publicity (decided and undecided issues in relation to trade marks and copyright exhaustion). Intellect Prop Q 3:95–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Stothers C (2007) Parallel trade in Europe: intellectual property, competition and regulatory law. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuckel Μ (1991) Die Integrität von Marke, Ware und Verpackung. Heymann, Köln

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer P (1987) Wettbewerbsrechtliche Schranken für die Händlerwerbung mit bekannten Herstellermarken? WRP 33:299–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Unglaub K (2001) Der selektive Vertrieb von Parfum und Luxuskosmetika im Kartell-, Wettbewerbs- und Markenrecht. Lang, Frankfurt am Main

    Google Scholar 

  • Urlesberger F (2002) Warenverkehrsfreiheit und Markenrecht. Manz, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • van Empel M (1979) Centrafarm und das europäische Markenrecht – Bemerkungen zu den Entscheidungen des Europäischen Gerichtshofs in den Rechtssachen 102/77 und 3/78. GRUR Int 28:539–543

    Google Scholar 

  • von Gamm O-F (1965) Warenzeichengesetz, Kommentar. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Wadlow C (2004) The law of passing-off, unfair competition by misrepresentation, 3rd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Waibel E (1977a) Reparatur und Aufarbeiten von Markenwaren in zeichenrechtlicher Sicht – Bemerkungen zum Urteil der Cour de Lyon vom 13. Juli 1976. GRUR Int 26:181–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Waibel E (1977b) Warenzeichenrechtliche und wettbewerbsrechtliche Fragen des Ersatzteile-, Zubehör- und Reparaturgewerbes: eine Untersuchung zur Rechtslage in Belgien, Italien, den USA und in Deutschland, 1 Auflage. Heymann, Köln

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Lazaros G. Grigoriadis

Authors
  1. Lazaros G. Grigoriadis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Grigoriadis, L.G. (2014). Legitimate Reasons for Excluding the Application of the Principle of EU-Wide Exhaustion of Trademark Rights: The Provisions of Article 7 (2) of Directive 2008/95/EC and Article 13 (2) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009/ΕC. In: Trade Marks and Free Trade. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04795-9_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation