Report 2003 - EFTA Court

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Kapitell III. Avgjørelser av Domstolen: Sak E-3/02 Paranova AS v Merck & Co., Inc. med flere minne om dem produsenten selv anvendte på det skandinaviske markedet. Hvorvidt stripene var vertikale eller horisontale var avhengig av emballasjens utforming 9 Ved stevning av 15 august 1995 til Asker og Bærum herredsrett reiste ankemotpartene søksmål mot den ankende part, med påstand om at den ankende part skulle forbys å markedsføre “Renitec” og “Sinemet,” som på det tidspunktet var de eneste Merck-produserte legemidler den ankende part markedsførte i Norge. Saken ble senere utvidet til å gjelde samtlige Merck-produserte legemidler som den ankende part markedsførte i Norge, og hvis produktnavn er ankemotpartenes registrerte varemerke. Herredsretten avsa dom i saken 21 januar 1999 i tråd med ankemotpartenes påstand. 10 Som følge av herredsrettens dom endret den ankende part emballasjen ved at dets eget varemerke og den femkantede logoen ble fjernet. De vertikale og horisontale stripene langs endekantene ble beholdt, men den ankende part endret fargene fra mørkegrønt og lysegrønt til mørkegrønt og gråsort, slik at de ble mer like ankemotpartenes egen fargebruk (mørkegrønt og grått). Denne fargebruken er også beskyttet som et Fellesskapsvaremerke, registrert ved OHIM under nr 000077701 for Merck & Co., Inc., USA. 11 Bildet nedenfor, som er fremlagt av ankemotpartene uten innsigelse fra den ankende part, viser et eksempel på forsiden av ankemotpartenes originalpakning (venstre) og av den ompakkede emballasje brukt av den ankende part etter herredsrettens dom (høyre): 12 Den ankende part anket dommen til Borgarting lagmannsrett 23 mars 1999. Ankemotpartene fremmet innsigelse mot den nye emballasjen under saksforberedelsen i ankesaken. Det er omtvistet på hvilket tidspunkt ankemotpartene for første gang fremmet innsigelse mot den ankende parts bruk av fargestriper. 13 Borgarting lagmannsrett avsa 14 januar 2002 dom i saken i samsvar med ankemotpartenes påstand. Lagmannsretten la til grunn at “(m)ed sin bruk av egen design – herunder fargestriper – på emballasjen på produkter fremstilt av andre, i nærværende sak Merck, bidrar Paranova til å utviske skillet mellom produsent og distributør/importør.” Lagmannsretten la videre til grunn at den ankende parts bruk av fargestriper på den nye emballasjen “… i all hovedsak bare (bidrar) til en gjenkjennelse av Paranova selv.” I følge punkt 2 i lagmannsrettens
Chapter III. Decisions of the <strong>Court</strong>: Case E-3/02 Paranova AS v Merck & Co. Inc. and Others operative part of the lagmannsrett’s judgment the Appellant “is prohibited from marketing repackaged products that are labelled with the trade marks “Aldomet,” “Blocadren,” “Clinoril,” “Indocid,” “Mevacor,” “Renitec,” “Sinemet” or “Zocor” when the products’ new packaging is labelled with a trade mark and/or logo of Paranova AS and/or other graphic elements that make up a part of the packaging’s design and that are affixed by or for Paranova AS. Correspondingly, Paranova AS is prohibited from marketing products that are not repackaged, but on which a label has been affixed to the original packaging.” 14 Even though the Appellant disputed the correctness of the lagmannsrett’s prohibition, it chose to comply with the prohibition pending a final decision. It therefore notified both the Respondents and the market that it would shift to white packaging with black writing, the package design which is still used at present. 15 The Appellant notified Statens Legemiddelverk (the Norwegian Medicines Control Authority) in order to obtain the mandatory marketing license and approval of the packaging. In a decision of 26 February 2002, the Authority refused to approve the Appellant’s use of white packaging with black lettering. The Authority found that extensive use of such packaging could lead to increased confusion and incorrect usage of pharmaceuticals. On administrative appeal, the Ministry of Health agreed with the Authority’s reasoning, but found that the relevant national regulation did not authorise the denial of approval on those grounds. On that basis, the Authority then granted a temporary approval of the simplified packaging. The Authority has subsequently proposed to amend the regulation, so as to give the Authority express powers to require the inclusion of graphic elements and colours in the packaging of pharmaceuticals, with a view to reducing the danger of confusion or erroneous use. 16 The Appellant appealed paragraph 2 of the operative part of the lagmannsrett’s judgment to Høyesterett. Høyesterett seeks to clarify whether packaging onto which have been affixed vertical or horizontal coloured stripes along the edges can be prohibited by virtue of the exclusive right of the trade mark proprietor, i.e. whether in accordance with Article 7(2) of the Directive the Respondents had “legitimate reasons” for opposing the Appellant’s use of coloured stripes. It referred the following questions to the <strong>Court</strong>: 1. Do “legitimate reasons” exist within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Council Directive 89/104/EEA, cf. Articles 11 and 13 EEA, in a case where the conditions for permitting a parallel importer to undertake repackaging of pharmaceutical products and reaffixing of the trade mark have been met, but where the trade mark proprietor opposes the marketing of the repackaged product with the trade mark reaffixed in a packaging that the parallel importer has equipped with coloured stripes and/or other graphic elements that make up a part of the design of the packaging?
Page 1 and 2:
Report of the EFTA Court 2003
Page 3:
Report of the EFTA Court 2003
Page 6 and 7:
A collection of the relevant legal
Page 8 and 9:
Chapter I. Administration of the Co
Page 10 and 11:
Chapter II. Judges and Staff II. Ju
Page 12 and 13:
Chapter II. Judges and Staff CURRIC
Page 14 and 15:
III. Decisions of the Court
Page 16 and 17:
Chapter III. Decisions of the Court
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
VI Costs Chapter III. Decisions of
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75: Chapter III. Decisions of the Court
Page 116 and 117: Kapitell III. Avgjørelser av Domst
Page 136 and 137: Kapitell Kapitell III. III. Avgjør
Page 174 and 175:
Kapitell III. Avgjørelser av Domst
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337:
CASES 1994 - 2002 CASE PARTIES TYPE
Page 338 and 339:
15 E-4/96 Fridtjof Frank Gundersen
Page 340 and 341:
30 E-3/98 Herbert Rainford-Towning
Page 342:
46 E-9/00 EFTA Surveillance Authori
show all

Report 2003 - EFTA Court

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?