Amazon-Marketplace: No Trade Mark Infringement Due to Storage of Infringing Goods on Behalf of Third Parties When There Is No Knowledge of the Unauthorized Use

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (7) ◽  
pp. 755-755
Keyword(s):  
Trade Mark ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Trade Mark Infringement

scholarly journals ‘As Good as New’ – Sale of Repaired or Refurbished Goods: Commendable Practice or Trade Mark Infringement?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annette Kur
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Secondary Market ◽  
The Other ◽  
Entrepreneurial Activity ◽  
Binary Choice ◽  
Trade Mark Infringement ◽  
First Sale

Abstract Prolonging the life cycle of products in order to reduce waste and preserve resources is a call of our time. Entrepreneurial activity on the market for used and repaired goods should therefore be encouraged. However, problems may arise where trade-marked products are offered for sale after repair or refurbishment by third parties. While commercialisation of goods once put on the market by the trade mark holder or with their consent is free in principle, this does not apply when the condition of the product was changed after the first sale. This may cause a dilemma for persons who want to be active on the secondary market for repaired or refurbished goods: if the trade mark remains on the product, this may result in infringement; on the other hand, under the jurisprudence of the CJEU removal of the trade mark may equally be prohibited. This article explores the issue with a view to CJEU as well as German case law on this and adjacent scenarios. It concludes that instead of a strictly binary choice – either the trade mark remains on the product or is removed – a middle solution should apply that allows using the trade mark in relation to repaired or refurbished goods in addition to providing further information.

Padlocked to an export exemption? The OEM-related trade mark dispute in China

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-21
Author(s):  
Lizhou Wei
Keyword(s):  
Trade Mark ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Trade Mark Infringement ◽  
Policy Objectives ◽  
Per Se ◽  
The Right ◽  
Open Question ◽  
Related Trade ◽  
The Eu

Should a trade mark owner have the right to prevent third parties from affixing a trade mark to products intended for export? This problem has attracted less attention in the EU and US than it deserves. In comparison, Chinese courts have had to stand on this issue in the last decades when adjudicating on the cross-border OEM cases. Since the judicial opinion of the Chinese Supreme People's Court has always been in flux with the change of the presiding judge of the IP tribunal, this remains an open question in China. In practice, most Chinese courts are inclined to accept the export exemption rule and deny that OEM activities constitute trade mark infringement. This article questions the export exemption rule and calls for a return to the strong-protection approach. It is proposed that affixing a trade mark to products per se constitutes trade mark infringement irrespective of where the products are to be sold, which is more dogmatically coherent with the legal materials and also in line with the existing policy objectives in China.

14. Defences to trade mark infringement

2019 ◽  
pp. 320-360
Author(s):  
Stavroula Karapapa ◽  
Luke McDonagh
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
European Economic Area ◽  
European Economic ◽  
Trade Mark Infringement ◽  
Economic Area ◽  
Parallel Importation ◽  
Own Name ◽  
Scope Of Protection

This chapter looks at the various defences against trade mark infringement and the way in which the courts have interpreted them. A defendant's principal argument will be to deny that there has been any infringing conduct, and/or that what has been done is not within the scope of protection given to the registered mark. There are, however, a number of statutory defences. These defences span from the use of one's own name to a framework outlining the conditions of comparative advertisement and the role of exhaustion of rights as a defence to an action for trade mark infringement, including the ways in which the intellectual property owner can object to the parallel importation of non-European Economic Area (EEA) goods.

13. Infringement and loss of registration of trade marks

2019 ◽  
pp. 290-319
Author(s):  
Stavroula Karapapa ◽  
Luke McDonagh
Keyword(s):  
Trade Mark ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Trade Mark Infringement ◽  
Scope Of Protection

This chapter focuses on trade mark infringement, setting out the rights of a trade mark owner to prevent others from making use of any sign which is the same as or similar to the registered mark in the course of trade. A claimant who brings a trade mark infringement action will have to show two things: that an act of infringement has been committed, and that such conduct falls within the scope of protection afforded to the registered mark. Once these two points have been established, the court will normally find in favour of the claimant unless one or more of the counter-arguments raised by the defendant succeeds. A defendant who is sued for trade mark infringement, besides denying that infringement has been made out or raising one of the statutory defences, will usually try to counterclaim that the mark should be revoked or declared invalid.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document