Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Switzerland

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Compatibility of Transactional Resolutions of Antitrust Proceedings with Due Process and Fundamental Rights & Online Exhaustion of IP Rights

  • 384 Accesses

Abstract

The online distribution of goods is taking off around the globe and in Switzerland. This is true with respect to tangible products (such as sport shoes on eBay) and services (like flights at swiss.com). Increasingly also, people buy software and other goods such as music, videos, and books in purely digital form, i.e. without transfer of any tangible medium (sometimes also referred to as material medium). With respect to software, for instance, CDs and DVDs have been largely replaced by downloads from the Internet. In 2011, the amount spent by Swiss consumers in relation to e-commerce reached almost 5 billion Swiss francs; this shows a substantial increase over the past years, and this trend is expected to continue in the future.

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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 an interesting list of digital products and services which are successful in the market, see, for instance, http://explorerhub.com/blog/sell-digital-services-products/.

  2. 2.

    See the figures provided by the Swiss Federal Statistical Office at http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/fr/index/themen/16/04/key/approche_globale.indicator.30108.301.html?open=1#1. It is worth pointing out that Swiss law—as compared, for instance, to the EU law—contains very few provisions specifically applicable to e-commerce (this concept is moreover not defined in the applicable provisions). In this respect, see, for instance, the specific page available on the website of the federal administration at http://www.kmu.admin.ch/kmu-betreiben/03260/03263/03274/index.html?lang=fr.

  3. 3.

    To illustrate this question, it may be recalled that the issue was brought up in the news in September 2012 when the American actor Bruce Willis stated that he wanted to leave his large music library to his daughters. This was, however, not possible because under the applicable iTunes terms and conditions, Bruce Willis was not the owner but only the borrower of the music files. In this respect, see, for instance, http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/09/03/bruce-willis-to-sue-apple-over-itunes/.

  4. 4.

    For a recent contribution under Swiss law, see S. Brändli/A. Tamò, Mainstream – Streaming als Nutzungsform der Gegenwart und der Zukunft, in: sic! 2013, p. 651 et seq.

  5. 5.

    It should nonetheless be pointed out that R. M. Hilty/K. Köklü/F. Hafenbrädl, Software agreements: stocktaking and outlook – Lessons from the UsedSoft v. Oracle case from a comparative law perspective, in: IIC 2013, p. 263 et seq., interestingly argue that cloud computing services could be subject to an implied license (the analysis is close to exhaustion).

  6. 6.

    Particularly, Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, OJ 2001 L 167/10 (the “EU Copyright Directive”), and Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs, OJ 2009 L 111/16 (the “EU Software Directive”).

  7. 7.

    CJEU, C-128/11, UsedSoft GmbH v. Oracle International Corp. For an excellent contribution regarding this case, see R. M. Hilty/K. Köklü/F. Hafenbrädl, Software agreements: stocktaking and outlook – Lessons from the UsedSoft v. Oracle case from a comparative law perspective, in: IIC 2013, p. 263 et seq. See also R. M. Hilty, Die Rechtsnatur des Softwarevertrages – Erkenntnisse aus der Entscheidung des EuGH UsedSoft vs. Oracle, in: Computer und Recht 2012, p. 625 et seq. For a general discussion about the UsedSoft v. Oracle case from a Swiss perspective, see C. Taufer-Laffer, Urheberrechtsentwicklung durch den EuGH – entfernt sich die EU von der Schweiz, in: sic! 2013, p. 403 et seq. (in particular p. 411).

  8. 8.

    WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), adopted in Geneva on December 20, 1996, and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT), adopted in Geneva on December 20, 1996. Both Treaties can be found on WIPO’s website at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/. Also, the Agreed Statements concerning the WIPO Copyright Treaty adopted by the Diplomatic Conference on December 20, 1996, available at http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/fr/wipo_treaties/text.jsp?file_id=295456 (the “Agreed Statements”).

  9. 9.

    With respect to the doctrine of exhaustion in general, see US Supreme Court, 133 S. Ct. 1351 (2013), Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. For a contribution which makes the link between the Kirtsaeng case and the online world, see C. D. Asay, Kirtsaeng and the first-sale doctrine’s digital problem, in: Stanford Law Review Online 2013, Vol. 66, p. 17 et seq. For a recent case about exhaustion in the online world, see US District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 12 Civ. 95 (RJS), Capitol Records, LLC, v. ReDigi Inc. For an interesting discussion about this case, see G. Capobianco, Rethinking ReDigi: How a characteristics-based test advances the “digital first sale” doctrine debate, in: Cardozo Law Review 2013, Vol. 35, p. 391 et seq. More generally in this context, see, for instance, also A. K. Perzanowski/J. Schultz, Digital exhaustion, in: University of California Law Review 2011, Vol. 58, p. 889 et seq.

  10. 10.

    Federal Copyright Act of 9 October 1992 (Loi fédérale sur le droit d’auteur et les droits voisins (LDA)/Bundesgesetz über das Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (URG)), classified compilation of federal law 231.1 (hereafter “Copyright Act”).

  11. 11.

    For the sake of completeness, it may be recalled that WIPO Copyright Treaty, Article 6(2), provides that “[n]othing in this Treaty shall affect the freedom of Contracting Parties to determine the conditions, if any, under which the exhaustion of the right in Paragraph (1) applies after the first sale or other transfer of ownership of the original or a copy of the work with the authorization of the author.”

  12. 12.

    E. Philippin, ad LDA, Article 12, in: J. de Werra/P. Gilliéron (ed.), Commentaire romand du droit de la propriété intellectuelle, Basel 2013, § 34 et seq. With respect to neighboring rights, Copyright Act, Article 38, provides that “[t]he provisions under Article 1 paragraph 1 […] of this Act apply mutatis mutandis to the rights to which the performers, phonogram and audiovisual fixation producers and broadcasting organisations are entitled.”

  13. 13.

    This provision reads as follows: “The author has the right in particular to offer, transfer or otherwise distribute copies of the work.”

  14. 14.

    Copyright Act, Article 10(2)(a). This provision reads as follows: “The author has the right in particular to produce copies of the work, such as printed matter, phonograms, audiovisual fixations or data carriers.”

  15. 15.

    Copyright Act, Article 10(2)(c). This provision reads as follows: “The author has the right in particular to recite, perform or present a work, or make it perceptible somewhere else or make it available directly or through any kind of medium in such a way that persons may access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.”

  16. 16.

    Federal Trademark Act of 28 August 1992 (Loi fédérale sur la protection des marques et des indications de provenance (LPM)/Bundesgesetz über den Schutz von Marken und Herkunftsangaben (MSchG)), classified compilation of federal law 232.11 (hereafter “Trademark Act”).

  17. 17.

    Swiss Federal Tribunal, Case (ATF/BGE) 122 III 469, Chanel SA Genève et Chanel SA contre EPA AG.

  18. 18.

    P. Gilliéron, ad LPM, Article 13, in: J. de Werra/P. Gilliéron (ed.), Commentaire romand du droit de la propriété intellectuelle, Basel 2013, § 23.

  19. 19.

    Swiss Federal Tribunal, Case (ATF/BGE) 122 III 469, Chanel SA Genève et Chanel SA contre EPA AG.

  20. 20.

    Swiss Federal Tribunal, Case (ATF/BGE) 124 III 321, Imprafot AG gegen Nintendo Co. Ltd und Waldmeier AG.

  21. 21.

    Most scholars consider that this solution should also apply to designs. See, for instance, D. Kraus/L. Ghassemi, ad LBI, Article 9a, in: J. de Werra/P. Gilliéron (ed.), Commentaire romand du droit de la propriété intellectuelle, Basel 2013, § 23.

  22. 22.

    Federal Patent Act of 25 June 1954 (Loi fédérale sur les brevets d’invention (LBI)/Bundesgesetz über Erfindungspatente (PatG)), classified compilation of federal law 232.14 (hereafter “Patent Act”).

  23. 23.

    Patent Act, Article 9a(5), provides for an exception to the principle of regional exhaustion: products for whose price in Switzerland or in the country in which they are placed on the market is fixed by the state (essentially pharmaceutical products) are subject to national exhaustion.

  24. 24.

    Swiss Federal Tribunal, Case (ATF/BGE) 124 III 321, Imprafot AG gegen Nintendo Co. Ltd und Waldmeier AG, § 2(i).

  25. 25.

    Swiss Federal Tribunal, Case (ATF/BGE) 124 III 321, Imprafot AG gegen Nintendo Co. Ltd und Waldmeier AG, § 2(i) i.f.

  26. 26.

    Interestingly, the Federal Tribunal refers occasionally to opinions of the US Supreme Court. This was notably the case in the Nintendo judgment. See Swiss Federal Tribunal, Case (ATF/BGE) 124 III 321, Imprafot AG gegen Nintendo Co. Ltd und Waldmeier AG, § 2(i).

  27. 27.

    E. Philippin, ad LDA, Article 12, in: J. de Werra/P. Gilliéron (ed.), Commentaire romand du droit de la propriété intellectuelle, Basel 2013, § 6.

  28. 28.

    C. Taufer-Laffer, Urheberrechtsentwicklung durch den EuGH – entfernt sich die EU von der Schweiz, in: sic! 2013, p. 403.

  29. 29.

    This copy stays permanently (at least until it is made unusable) on the hard drive of a computer or the memory of a smartphone or tablet. For the sake of clarity, this situation has to be distinguished from temporary copies. Temporary copies typically occur when video files are streamed and stored for a short period of time in the computer’s memory (buffer; RAM). See S. Brändli/A. Tamò, Mainstream – Streaming als Nutzungsform der Gegenwart und der Zukunft, in: sic! 2013.

  30. 30.

    Judgment of the Zug Cantonal Tribunal of 4 May 2011, Gebrauchtsoftware, published in: sic! 2012, p. 99 et seq.

  31. 31.

    A reason which may explain why the court did not discuss whether the communication right was at stake when copies are sold online may be that the plaintiff appears to have argued only from the perspective of the distribution right (the main argument being that the copy had not been transferred within the meaning of Copyright Act, Article 10(2)(b)). See Judgment of the Zug Cantonal Tribunal of 4 May 2011, Gebrauchtsoftware, published in: sic! 2012, p. 101.

  32. 32.

    I. Cherpillod, ad LDA, Article 10, in: J. de Werra/P. Gilliéron (ed.), Commentaire romand du droit de la propriété intellectuelle, Basel 2013, § 15 and 25. See also the authors cited by C. P. Rigamonti, Der Handel mit Gebrauchtsoftware nach schweizerischen Urheberrecht, in: GRUR Int. 2009/1, p. 14 et seq., p. 20 (footnote 83).

  33. 33.

    Federal Council, FF 2006 3263, Message du 10 mars 2006 concernant l’arrêté fédéral relatif à l’approbation de deux traits de l’Organisation Mondiale de la Propriété Intellectuelle et concernant la modification de la loi sur le droit d’auteur, p. 3285 (hereafter “Federal Council’s Message”).

  34. 34.

    Federal Council’s Message, p. 3285.

  35. 35.

    P. Gilliéron, Le monde de l’audiovisuel à l’ère numérique, in: sic ! 2009, p. 755 (p. 770). See also D. Barrelet/D. Egloff, Le nouveau droit d’auteur – Commentaire de la loi fédérale sur le droit d’auteur et les droits voisins, 3rd ed., Berne 2008, ad LDA, Article 10, § 16, and LDA, Article 12, § 1a. Regrettably, neither Gilliéron nor Barrelet/Egloff refer to the 2008 amendment of the Copyright Act and the underpinning international rules. More specifically, they do not explain how their approach may be compatible with said amendment and rules.

  36. 36.

    C. P. Rigamonti, Der Handel mit Gebrauchtsoftware nach schweizerischen Urheberrecht, in: GRUR Int. 2009/1, p. 14 et seq., p. 20.

  37. 37.

    The explicit exclusion of the distribution of copies is drawn from the Basic Proposal for the Substantive Provisions of the Treaty on Certain Questions Concerning the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works to Be Considered by the Diplomatic Conference, WIPO Doc. CRCN/DC/4 (August 30, 1996), § 10.14.

  38. 38.

    C. P. Rigamonti, Der Handel mit Gebrauchtsoftware nach schweizerischen Urheberrecht, in: GRUR Int. 2009/1, p. 14 et seq., p. 21.

  39. 39.

    With respect specifically to the concept of tangible copies as the result of downloading, see C. P. Rigamonti, Der Handel mit Gebrauchtsoftware nach schweizerischen Urheberrecht, in: GRUR Int. 2009/1, p. 14 et seq., p. 17.

  40. 40.

    For additional scholars who took the same position as Rigamonti with respect to the interpretation of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, see C. P. Rigamonti, Der Handel mit Gebrauchtsoftware nach schweizerischen Urheberrecht, in: GRUR Int. 2009/1, p. 14 et seq., p. 21 (footnote 102).

  41. 41.

    CJEU, C-128/11, UsedSoft GmbH v. Oracle International Corp.

  42. 42.

    CJEU, C-128/11, UsedSoft GmbH v. Oracle International Corp., § 53.

  43. 43.

    CJEU, C-128/11, UsedSoft GmbH v. Oracle International Corp., § 55 and 59. In this respect, the CJEU referred to the wording of EU Software Directive, Article 4(2), which does not make any distinction based on the medium.

  44. 44.

    CJEU, C-128/11, UsedSoft GmbH v. Oracle International Corp., § 56.

  45. 45.

    Federal Council’s Message, p. 3281.

  46. 46.

    See also C. P. Rigamonti, Der Handel mit Gebrauchtsoftware nach schweizerischen Urheberrecht, in: GRUR Int. 2009/1, p. 14 et seq., p. 18.

  47. 47.

    From a terminological perspective, it is sometimes referred in practice to sale agreements. In fact, these sale agreements contain restrictions which assimilate them rather to licenses.

  48. 48.

    This position is shared by the majority of scholars in Switzerland. See in that respect C. P. Rigamonti, Der Handel mit Gebrauchtsoftware nach schweizerischen Urheberrecht, in: GRUR Int. 2009/1, p. 14 et seq., p. 18, and the references cited. Also, Judgment of the Zug Cantonal Tribunal of 4 May 2011, Gebrauchtsoftware, published in: sic! 2012, p. 101 et seq.

  49. 49.

    Judgment of the Zug Cantonal Tribunal of 4 May 2011, Gebrauchtsoftware, published in: sic! 2012, p. 102. The Zug Cantonal Tribunal specified that restrictions imposed on the acquirer on the resale of copies do not prevent exhaustion. In this respect, see Sect. 28.4 below.

  50. 50.

    See Sect. 28.2.1 above.

  51. 51.

    With respect to secondary liability in the IP context under Swiss law, see I. Cherpillod, Violation des droits de propriété intellectuelle: complicité et instigation, in: A. Ragueneau (ed.): Internet 2003, Lausanne 2004, p. 215 et seq. In this context, it is worth pointing out that ReDigi—which operated a service billed as an online “used record store” for preowned digital music downloads—was found to be a direct infringer by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. See US District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 12 Civ. 95 (RJS), Capitol Records, LLC, v. ReDigi Inc, § III.C.1.

  52. 52.

    Ordinance regarding Copyright and Neighbouring Rights of 26 April 1993 (Ordonnance sur le droit d’auteur et les droits voisins (ODAu)/Verordnung über das Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (URV)), classified compilation of federal law 231.11. See also C. P. Rigamonti, Der Handel mit Gebrauchtsoftware nach schweizerischen Urheberrecht, in: GRUR Int. 2009/1, p. 14 et seq., p. 24.

  53. 53.

    P.-E. Ruedin, ad LDA, Article 19, in: J. de Werra/P. Gilliéron (ed.), Commentaire romand du droit de la propriété intellectuelle, Basel 2013, § 53 and 98 et seq.

  54. 54.

    As argued by some prominent scholars, it would be more appropriate to address the whole issue of digital transfer from the perspective of the implied license theory. R. M. Hilty/K. Köklü/F. Hafenbrädl, Software agreements: stocktaking and outlook – Lessons from the UsedSoft v. Oracle case from a comparative law perspective, in: IIC 2013, p. 263 et seq., p. 282. Since the present paper focuses on the principle of exhaustion, the implied license theory will not be addressed.

  55. 55.

    See, for instance, E. Philippin, ad LDA, Article 12, in: J. de Werra/P. Gilliéron (ed.), Commentaire romand du droit de la propriété intellectuelle, Basel 2013, § 13; Judgment of the Zug Cantonal Tribunal of 4 May 2011, Gebrauchtsoftware, published in: sic! 2012, p. 103 et seq. and the cited references; R. M. Hilty/K. Köklü/F. Hafenbrädl, Software agreements: stocktaking and outlook – Lessons from the UsedSoft v. Oracle case from a comparative law perspective, in: IIC 2013, p. 263 et seq., p. 280 et seq.

  56. 56.

    Federal Council’s Message.

  57. 57.

    For instance, Philippin states that “nothing justifies the ban on the online acquirer of a copy to resell this specific copy” [emphasis added]. E. Philippin, ad LDA, Article 12, in: J. de Werra/P. Gilliéron (ed.), Commentaire romand du droit de la propriété intellectuelle, Basel 2013, § 13. Similarly, the Zug Cantonal Tribunal stated that it does see why online distribution and distribution through the transfer of the tangible medium should be treated differently. Judgment of the Zug Cantonal Tribunal of 4 May 2011, Gebrauchtsoftware, published in: sic! 2012, p. 104. At first sight, it seems that one way to avoid the problem of absence of loophole and the related impossibility to apply by analogy the doctrine of exhaustion is to address the issue from the perspective of the implied license theory.

  58. 58.

    This question is quite extensively discussed by C. P. Rigamonti, Der Handel mit Gebrauchtsoftware nach schweizerischen Urheberrecht, in: GRUR Int. 2009/1, p. 14 et seq., p. 19 et seq., who further refers to several scholars.

  59. 59.

    Such technologies must be distinguished from technological protection measures (DRM). According to Philippin, this latter type of measures violates Copyright Act, Article 39a(4), which provides that “[t]he ban on circumvention may not be enforced against those persons who undertake the circumvention exclusively for legal permitted uses.” E. Philippin, ad LDA, Article 12, in: J. de Werra/P. Gilliéron (ed.), Commentaire romand du droit de la propriété intellectuelle, Basel 2013, § 13 i.f. In my view, assuming that the exhaustion principle can apply, not all DRM measures should be deemed unlawful. DRM measures preventing the acquirer from copying the work should be permitted when the copyright owner does not intend to definitely transfer the copy of the work to the first acquirer.

  60. 60.

    US District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 12 Civ. 95 (RJS), Capitol Records, LLC, v. ReDigi Inc.

  61. 61.

    Capobianco, Rethinking ReDigi: How a characteristics-based test advances the “digital first sale” doctrine debate, in: Cardozo Law Review 2013, Vol. 35, p. 418.

  62. 62.

    Capobianco, Rethinking ReDigi: How a characteristic-based test advances the “digital first sale” doctrine debate, in: Cardozo Law Review 2013, Vol. 35, p. 419 et seq., referring to the entry of an alpha-numeric product code to authenticate prior to the use of the software.

  63. 63.

    Capobianco, Rethinking ReDigi: How a characteristics-based test advances the “digital first sale” doctrine debate, in: Cardozo Law Review 2013, Vol. 35, p. 420 et seq. In this connection, one should never forget that some people may be able to come up with technologies that would have precisely the opposite purpose, namely allowing the first acquirer to both keep his or her copy of the work and sell additional copies of said work.

  64. 64.

    In addition, the point of view of experts in social sciences would also be useful. It is indeed not unreasonable to assume that average people getting copies online are more willing to disseminate those copies than “more traditional” buyers of copies incorporated in a tangible medium.

  65. 65.

    C. P. Rigamonti, Der Handel mit Gebrauchtsoftware nach schweizerischen Urheberrecht, in: GRUR Int. 2009/1, p. 14 et seq., p. 20.

  66. 66.

    See Sect. 28.2.1 above.

  67. 67.

    CJEU, C-128/11, UsedSoft GmbH v. Oracle International Corp. § 70. The CJEU also added some explanation for cases of licenses with multiple users.

  68. 68.

    Judgment of the Zug Cantonal Tribunal of 4 May 2011, Gebrauchtsoftware, published in: sic! 2012, p. 104.

  69. 69.

    Judgment of the Zug Cantonal Tribunal of 4 May 2011, Gebrauchtsoftware, published in: sic! 2012, p. 105.

  70. 70.

    Judgment of the Zug Cantonal Tribunal of 4 May 2011, Gebrauchtsoftware, published in: sic! 2012, p. 104.

  71. 71.

    Judgment of the Zug Cantonal Tribunal of 4 May 2011, Gebrauchtsoftware, published in: sic! 2012, p. 105 i.f.

  72. 72.

    Rigamonti, who deals with the restriction on the resale of copies, does not say that this practice may be prohibited on the basis of copyright law. See C. P. Rigamonti, Zur Rechtsmässigkeit des Handels mit Softwareproduktschlüsseln, in: Aktuelle Juristische Praxis/Pratique Juridique Actuelle 2010/5, p. 582 et seq. (in particular, p. 587 et seq.).

  73. 73.

    Swiss Federal Tribunal, Case (ATF/BGE) 124 III 321, Imprafot AG gegen Nintendo Co. Ltd und Waldmeier AG, § 3.

  74. 74.

    C. P. Rigamonti, Zur Rechtsmässigkeit des Handels mit Softwareproduktschlüsseln, in: Aktuelle Juristische Praxis/Pratique Juridique Actuelle 2010/5, p. 582 et seq. p. 588 et seq.

  75. 75.

    Federal Cartel Act of 6 October 1995 (Loi fédérale sur les cartels et autres restrictions à la concurrence (LCart)/Bundesgesetz über Kartelle und andere Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen (KG)) (classified compilation of federal law 251) (hereafter “Cartel Act”).

  76. 76.

    According to the Swiss Competition Commission and the most recent literature, Cartel Act, Article 3(2), is not even invested with any normative force but aims simply at drawing the attention to the fact that the specificities of intellectual property should be taken into account in the competition law analysis. In this respect, see A. Alberini, ad LCart, Article 3(2), in: J. de Werra/P. Gilliéron (ed.), Commentaire romand du droit de la propriété intellectuelle, Basel 2013.

  77. 77.

    A question which arises in this context is whether an agreement between a company providing digital goods and an end consumer qualifies as an agreement within the meaning of competition law. It may be recalled that the concept of agreement encompasses only agreements between undertakings, i.e. among entities operating in the market on a regular basis. At first glance, the end consumer cannot be considered as an undertaking. That said, end consumers increasingly tend to resell products on the Internet. It may therefore not be unreasonable to rethink the concept of undertaking in light of this evolution. If the concept of undertaking is broadly interpreted, an agreement between a company providing digital goods and an end consumer may qualify as an agreement within the meaning of competition law.

  78. 78.

    Cartel Act, Article 5(3), applies to agreements between competitors, while Cartel Act, Article 5(4), applies to agreements between noncompetitors.

  79. 79.

    It can be argued that Cartel Act, Article 5(4), should not apply to most restrictions on the resale of copies in online agreements because this provision, according to the language of the law, applies only to distribution agreements implementing an absolute territorial protection mechanism. This limitation to distribution agreements is, however, often perceived as a drafting mistake; thus, the provision should generally apply to all types of vertical agreements.

  80. 80.

    A. Alberini, Droit des accords verticaux: De l’enfance à l’adolescence, in: Semaine Judiciaire 2010 II, p. 123 et seq (in particular p. 130 et seq.).

  81. 81.

    See, for instance, the recent Kosmetikprodukte case handed down by the Swiss Competition Commission and summarized in C. Bovet/A. Alberini, Recent developments in Swiss competition law, in: Swiss Review of Business and Financial Market Law 2014/4, p. 435 et seq., § 10.

  82. 82.

    For an excellent paper on this topic under US law but whose fundamental principle can be transposed to other jurisdictions, see M. A. Lemley/M. P. McKenna, Is Pepsi really a substitute for Coke? Market definition in antitrust and IP, in: Georgetown Law Journal 2012, Vol. 100, p. 255 et seq.

  83. 83.

    In this respect, see Communication on vertical restraints adopted by the Swiss Competition Commission on 28 June 2010.

  84. 84.

    Communication from the Commission—Guidelines on the application of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to technology transfer agreements, OJ 2014 C 89/3 (with respect to copyright, in particular § 47 et seq. and 62 et seq.).

  85. 85.

    BMW was, for instance, heavily fined for restricting in its agreements in the EU the ability of end users residing in Switzerland to freely purchase motor vehicles from authorized distributors located in the EEA. In this respect, see C. Bovet/A. Alberini, Recent developments in Swiss competition law, in: Swiss Review of Business and Financial Market Law 2013/2, p. 158 et seq., § 9.

  86. 86.

    C. P. Rigamonti, Zur Rechtsmässigkeit des Handels mit Softwareproduktschlüsseln, in: Aktuelle Juristische Praxis/Pratique Juridique Actuelle 2010/5, p. 582 et seq. p. 590 et seq.

  87. 87.

    E. Clerc/P. Këllezi, ad LCart, Article 7(2), in: V. Martenet/C. Bovet/P. Tercier (ed.), Commentaire romand du droit de la concurrence, Basel 2013, § 176.

  88. 88.

    Copyright Act, Articles 61 et seq. With respect to preliminary measures, Copyright Act, Article 65.

  89. 89.

    From a strict methodological perspective, territoriality relates not to remedies but to the scope of Swiss copyright law. In practice though, territoriality is a question which is often discussed in relation to procedural choices and remedies.

  90. 90.

    Judgment of the Zug Cantonal Tribunal of 4 May 2011, Gebrauchtsoftware, published in: sic! 2012, p. 99 et seq.

  91. 91.

    Judgment of the Zug Cantonal Tribunal of 4 May 2011, Gebrauchtsoftware, published in: sic! 2012, p. 99 et seq. It should be noted that the Swiss defendant provided its German and UK counterparties with copies of the software incorporated in a tangible medium.

  92. 92.

    On this difficult question, see, for instance, F. Dessemontet, ad LDA, Article 1, in: J. de Werra/P. Gilliéron (ed.), Commentaire romand du droit de la propriété intellectuelle, Basel 2013, § 17 et seq.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lenz & Staehelin, Geneva, Switzerland

    Adrien Alberini Ph.D., LL.M. (Law, Science and Technology) (Stanford)

Authors
  1. Adrien Alberini Ph.D., LL.M.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adrien Alberini Ph.D., LL.M. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Addleshaw Goddard LLP, London, United Kingdom

    Bruce Kilpatrick

  2. de Weck, Zoells & Kobel, Geneva, Switzerland

    Pierre Kobel

  3. Këllezi Legal, Geneva, Switzerland

    Pranvera Këllezi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Alberini, A. (2016). Switzerland. In: Kilpatrick, B., Kobel, P., Këllezi, P. (eds) Compatibility of Transactional Resolutions of Antitrust Proceedings with Due Process and Fundamental Rights & Online Exhaustion of IP Rights. LIDC Contributions on Antitrust Law, Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27158-3_28

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27158-3_28

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-27157-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-27158-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation