Introduction – Tension Between Intellectual Property Rights (iprs) and Competition Rules and the Principle of Free Movement

2014 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Competition Rules

While the Treaty does not affect the existence of intellectual property rights, there are nonetheless circumstances in which the exercise of such rights may be restricted by the prohibitions laid down in the treaty. 2. Article 36 permits exceptions to the free movement of goods only to the extent to which such exceptions are necessary for the purpose of safeguarding the rights that constitute the specific subject-matter of the type of intellectual property in question. Perhaps the main advantage of this formula, apart from the fact that it narrows the scope of the exceptions permitted by Article 36, is that it allows subtle distinctions to be made depending on the type of intellectual property in issue. 3. The exclusive right conferred on the owner of intellectual property is exhausted in relation to the products in question when he puts them into circulation anywhere within the Common Market. Spelt out more fully, ‘the proprietor of an industrial or commercial property right protected by the legislation of a Member State may not rely on that legislation in order to oppose the importation of a product which has lawfully been marketed in another Member State by, or with the consent of, the proprietor of the right himself or person legally or economically dependent on him’. The expression ‘industrial and commercial property’ clearly embraces patents and trademarks. It also extends to such specialised areas as plant breeders’ rights. The court has held that copyright can also be a form of industrial or commercial property because it ‘includes the protection conferred by copyright, especially when exploited commercially in the form of licences capable of affecting distribution in the various Member States of goods incorporating the protected literary or artistic work’. The principle that the Treaty does not affect the existence of industrial and commercial property rights is derived from Article 222 of the treaty. This provides that ‘the treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership’. Consequently intellectual property rights are unaffected by the provisions of the treaty unless they hinder free movement or offend the rules of competition. In Keurkoop v Nancy Kean (see below) the design of a handbag which was manufactured in Taiwan was registered in the Benelux countries but without the authority of the actual author. In Case 78/70, Deutsche Grammophon v Metro-SB Grossmärkte [1971] ECR 487, [1971] CMLR 631, the European Court stated:

1997 ◽  
pp. 110-114
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Member State ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Member States ◽  
Commercial Property ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exclusive Right

Part III Tests of Abuse, 8 The Consumer Harm Test

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nazzini Renato
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Social Welfare ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Product Innovation ◽  
Consumer Welfare ◽  
Competition Rules ◽  
Vertical Foreclosure

This chapter studies the consumer harm test. The consumer harm test asks whether the conduct of the dominant undertaking results in higher prices, lower output, or reduced product innovation. The test is not necessarily the manifestation of a consumer welfare objective of the competition rules but is consistent with the achievement of long-term social welfare. Therefore, the test may be applied under Article 102 even if this provision does not aim at maximizing some measure of consumer welfare but long-term social welfare. The chapter then looks at the consumer harm test in vertical foreclosure, focusing on refusal to supply and margin squeeze. Proof of consumer harm is required in all vertical foreclosure cases and not only when the refusal to supply relates to intellectual property rights.

20. Free movement of goods and intellectual property rights

2016 ◽  
pp. 863-895
Author(s):  
Charlotte Waelde ◽  
Abbe Brown ◽  
Smita Kheria ◽  
Jane Cornwell
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE EC COMPETITION RULES

2006 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 302-303
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Competition Rules

19. Free movement of goods and intellectual property rights

2019 ◽  
pp. 752-781
Author(s):  
Abbe Brown ◽  
Smita Kheria ◽  
Jane Cornwell ◽  
Marta Iljadica
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Parallel Imports ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods

This chapter examines the European Union rules on the free movement of goods as they impact on intellectual property rights. It discusses the tensions arising between the aims of creating a common market and intellectual property, with particular reference to the Treaty provisions relevant to this area. The chapter examines the relevant case law with a focus on intra-EEA parallel imports, repackaging, legitimate interests in opposing the further circulation of goods within the European Community, international exhaustion of rights, and the relation between IP rights and free movement of services. The chapter concludes with discussion of recent developments in exhaustion of rights in the online environment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document