Parallel Imports: The Court of Justice of the EU Rules That Debranding and Rebranding of Imported Products While Stored in Customs Warehouse Constitutes Trade Mark Infringement

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele Giannino
Keyword(s):  
Trade Mark ◽  
Parallel Imports ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Trade Mark Infringement ◽  
The Eu

Targeting accepted as a criterion to establish international jurisdiction in online EU trade mark infringement cases

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (12) ◽  
pp. 926-927
Author(s):  
Eleonora Rosati
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
The Internet ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Trade Mark Infringement ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Court of Justice of the European Union, AMS Neve Ltd and Others v Heritage Audio SL and Pedro Rodríguez Arribas, Case C-172/18, EU:C:2019:674, 5 September 2019 (‘AMS Neve’) In its decision in AMS Neve, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has adopted a dynamic reading of Article 97(5) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation 207/2009 (now Article 125(5) of Regulation 2017/1001) and clarified that—in the event of an infringement of an EU trade mark over the Internet—also the courts of the place at which the defendant’s activity is targeted have jurisdiction to hear the resulting action.

scholarly journals Goods in Transit and Intellectual Property Under the EU Law and Caselaw of the Court of Justice

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-104
Author(s):  
Radim Charvát
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
In Transit ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The paper addresses the issue whether customs authorities of Member States are entitled to suspend or detain goods in transit (i.e., products directing from one non- Member State to another non-Member State through the EU) and the evolving case-law of the Court of Justice related to this matter. Prior to the judgment in Philips and Nokia cases, a so-called manufacturing fiction theory was applied by some Member State courts (especially Dutch courts). According to this theory, goods suspended or detained by customs authorities within the EU were considered to be manufactured in the Member State where the custom action took place. In the Philips and Nokia judgments, the Court of Justice rejected this manufacturing fiction theory. But the proposal for amendment to the Regulation on Community trade mark and the proposal of the new Trademark directive, as a part of the trademark reform within the EU, go directly against the ruling in the Philips and Nokia cases and against the Understanding between the EU and India.

Broad Specifications and Intent to Use: Is the EU Trade Mark System Credible?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Arnold
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Computer Software ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Bad Faith ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Intent To Use ◽  
The Eu

Abstract An assessment of the credibility of the EU trade mark system in the light of the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-371/18 Sky v SkyKick leads to the following conclusions: the decisions that lack of clarity and precision of specifications of goods and services is not a ground of invalidity and that partial bad faith when applying to register a trade mark leads to partial invalidity are unsurprising; the decision that applying to register a trade mark without intending to use it can amount to bad faith, at least in some circumstances, is an important step forward that gives national courts a tool with which to combat unjustifiably broad specifications of goods and services; but the jury is still out with regard to the EU trade mark system’s acceptance of broad terms such as ‘computer software’ in specifications.

7. Trade Marks II

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanya Aplin ◽  
Jennifer Davis
Keyword(s):  
Trade Mark ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Unfair Advantage ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter discusses the relative grounds for refusal to register a trade mark; acts that constitute infringement; and remedies for infringement. It considers the finding of the Court of Justice of the EU that the investment, advertising, and commercial functions of a trade mark will be protected as well as its role as a badge of origin in cases of ‘double identity’ under the Trade Marks Directive. The chapter considers possible changes to the position under the new Trade Marks Directive and looks at the CJEU’s interpretation of cases where a third party is deemed to have taken unfair advantage of a trade mark with a reputation. It also discusses the use of trade marks on the internet and the implications for findings of infringement.

Silhouette and the limits of free trade

1998 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 429-471
Author(s):  
Jennifer Davis
Keyword(s):  
Trade Mark ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Economic Area ◽  
Control Distribution ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Trade Mark Infringement ◽  
Economic Area ◽  
European Court ◽  
Grey Market ◽  
The Times

EVERYBODY loves a bargain. Supermarkets have found that the sale of cut price designer goods along with the groceries gives them the edge over their rivals, when consumer spending on food is expected to slump (The Times, 22 April 1998). The catch is that trade mark proprietors, such as Calvin Klein, having nurtured brand images, in which high prices and exclusivity reinforce each other, decline to sell their goods to the supermarkets, preferring to control distribution through specialist outlets. The supermarkets' response has been to go shopping on the “grey market”: buying branded goods from third parties, which are sold more cheaply outside the European Community (EC) and the wider European Economic Area (EEA), and importing them into the EEA for resale. The issue decided by the recent judgment of the European Court of Justice, Silhouette International Schmied GmbH & Co. Kg v. Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Case C-355/96 (1998), was whether the importation and resale of such goods without the brand owner's consent constitutes trade mark infringement.

scholarly journals Facing the 'Bad Faith'

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-127
Author(s):  
Tamar Khuchua
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Trade Mark ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Bad Faith ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legislative Framework ◽  
Trade Mark Law ◽  
Legislative Changes ◽  
The Eu

The Court of Justice of the European Union has suggested that when the concept set out in the EU regulation is not defined by that regulation, it should be understood according to its usual, everyday meaning. There is no doubt that the understanding of ‘bad faith’ might differ from one person to another and especially from one firm to another. Indeed, ‘bad faith’ in trade mark law might take many different forms which are not easy to detect as the large number of cases concerning the issue of ‘bad faith’ in relation to national and EU trade marks illustrate. By analysing the current legislative framework as well as the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the paper suggests that in order to maintain and even extend the smooth functioning of the EU trade mark system, legislative changes should be introduced. In particular, it is argued that it is reasonable to examine the intention of trade mark applicants already at the application stage in order to avoid the waste of resources and the burden of dealing with the trade marks registered in ‘bad faith’ in the invalidity proceedings post factum and to provide a non-exhaustive list of what elements the ‘bad faith’ can consist of. These amendments should also do good in terms of serving the broader goals of the EU law, which amongst others include, undistorted competition, legal certainty and sound administration.

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.

Institutional organisation of the European Union in the time of crisis – horizontal division of power and functions

2016 ◽  
pp. 54-66
Author(s):  
Monika Poboży
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
European Council ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Strong Position ◽  
Institutional System ◽  
The Eu

The article poses a question about the existence of the rule of separation of powers in the EU institutional system, as it is suggested by the wording of the treaties. The analysis led to the conclusion, that in the EU institutional system there are three separated functions (powers) assigned to different institutions. The Council and the European Parliament are legislative powers, the Commission and the European Council create a “divided executive”. The Court of Justice is a judicial power. The above mentioned institutions gained strong position within their main functions (legislative, executive, judicial), but the proper mechanisms of checks and balances have not been developed, especially in the relations between legislative and executive power. These powers do not limit one another in the EU system. In the EU there are therefore three separated but arbitrary powers – because they do not limit and balance one another, and are not fully controlled by the member states.

The preliminary ruling procedure at the court of justice of the European Union and transformation of European anti-discrimination law

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
pp. 66-72
Author(s):  
Elena Sorokina
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Essential Feature ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Eu

The preliminary ruling procedure is an essential feature of the EU legal system, which is a unique cooperation tool as part of the dialogue between the Court of Justice of the EU and national courts of the Member States. Its main purpose is to ensure uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of EU law with all Member States and to preserve the uniformity of the European legal system. The continuous use by national courts of the Member States of the mechanism of preliminary ruling and constructive inter-judicial cooperation, the Court of Justice has developed an extremely extensive case law on the prohibition of discrimination and with the result to introduce substantial changes in European anti-discrimination law.The preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice have shown its inclination to expand notions of what constitutes discrimination and in most cases the Court prompt by the desire to interpret the provisions of European law so as to ensure the full effectiveness of the law, as well as a willingness to promote and strengthen protection against discrimination in Europe. While the protection against discrimination on some grounds is stronger than others, however, the preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice are important contribution to the transformation of anti-discrimination law, promote change in the national legislation of the Member States and provide the more effective protection of human rights in general.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document