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 parallellimportøren, og slik bruk av fargestriper og/eller andre grafiske elementer: - enten er i samsvar med akseptert bransjepraksis for markedsføring av legemiddelprodukter - og/eller er i samsvar med anerkjente offentlige helseinteresser.” 42. Som et separat alternativ for generell anvendelse, foreslår den ankende part følgende svar: “Uten hensyn til svarene ovenfor, har innehaveren av varemerket ikke “berettiget grunn” i henhold til varemerkedirektivet artikkel 7(2) til å motsette seg en parallellimportørs markedsføring av et ompakket produkt, dersom innehaveren av varemerket ikke har fremsatt innsigelser mot ompakkingen av legemiddelproduktet, gjenpåføringen av varemerket eller emballasjens design innen rimelig tid etter at parallellimportøren har brakt det ompakkete legemiddelproduktet på markedet.” Ankemotpartene 43. Ankemotpartene anfører at svaret på det første spørsmålet som er stilt til EFTA-domstolen følger utvetydig av De europsiske fellesskaps domstols rettspraksis i ompakkingssaker, og er senest bekreftet i Boehringer. 19 Det vises videre til avgjørelsene i Hoffmann La Roche, 20 Bristol-Myers Squibb, Upjohn 21 og Ballantine 22 samt til avgjørelsene av de nasjonale høyesterettene i Danmark og Storbritannia. 23 44. Med utgangspunkt i varemerkets særlige funksjon, opprinnelsesgarantien, 24 kan innehaveren av varemerket alltid, kun med de forbehold som følger av annen setning i artikkel 30 EF, gjøre gjeldende sine varemerkerettigheter for å forhindre at parallellimportøren anvender varemerket etter ompakking av produktet. I henhold til direktivets ordlyd betyr dette at det må foreligge “berettiget grunn.” Når innehaveren velger å utøve sine 19 Særlig avsnittene 30-35. 20 Sak 102/77 Hoffman-La Roche [1978] ECR, 1139. 21 Sak C-379/97 Pharmacia & Upjohn v Paranova [1999] ECR, I-6927. 22 Sak C-349/95 Loendersloot v Ballantine [1997] ECR, I-6227, særlig i avsnitt 46. 23 Jf den danske høyesteretts avgjørelse av 4 januar 2002 og 22 april 2002, henvist til ovenfor, og av 19 desember 2002, Sak 214/2001 Handelsselskabet af 5. januar 2002 v Løvens Kemiske Fabrik; High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, [2003] EWHC 110 (Ch), av 6 februar 2002, avsnittene 19 og 20. 24 Som definert i sak C-10/89 Hag GF [1990] ECR, I-3711, i avsnitt 13.
Chapter III. Decisions of the Court: Case E-3/02 Paranova AS v Merck & Co. Inc. and Others proprietor chooses to exercise its trade mark rights to oppose the further marketing of the product in a particular package because of the appearance of that package, then it is this action that must be scrutinised to see if it amounts to a restriction of trade. The trade mark owner may not pursue objections that will lead to a denial of market access for the parallel imported product, but is free, for the purpose of safe-guarding the essential function of the trade mark, to pursue objections that do not restrict the effective access to the market. The tool for determining in what situations the objections of the trade mark proprietor, to further commercialisation of the goods under its trade mark, amounts to a disguised restriction of trade, is the necessity test. 25 At the heart of the necessity test lies the question of whether a repackaging that implies a less intrusive use of the proprietor’s trade marks is possible and sufficient to enable access to the market for the product in question, i.e. the proportionality principle. The significance of the necessity test as a result of a careful balancing of the conflicting considerations of free movement of goods and protection of trade mark rights is expressed by Advocate General Jacobs in his opinion in Boehringer. 26 45. The Respondents accept that the exclusive trade mark may not be relied on to oppose such alterations to the product packaging that are necessary to make parallel trade feasible. Therefore, they have not objected to the re-boxing as such where this is objectively necessary to obtain a package size that has access to the market. However, they do oppose the marketing of their products under their trade marks in the Appellant’s packaging by reference to the design used on the new packaging. 46. The Respondents further note that the Court of Justice of the European Communities does not distinguish between the different forms of repackaging when it comes to the application of Article 7(2) of the Directive. Re-boxing, i.e. repackaging in a new external packaging and re-labelling, i.e. sticking labels onto the original packaging are thus treated as equal. Both forms entail the use of the proprietor’s trade mark. Beyond the mere use of the trade mark on the altered packaging there are various ways in which this repackaging may interfere with the proprietor’s trade mark rights. The Respondents draw further distinctions between re-branding, i.e. replacing the original trade mark of the product and affixing on the new packaging (whether in the form of a new box or one or more labels) another trade mark of the proprietor, enabling trading under the same trade mark as used by the proprietor in the import state; 27 de-branding, i.e. the marketing of the product in new packaging without reference to the trade mark of the proprietor; 28 co-branding, i.e. the use of the trade mark on packaging that is also branded by the parallel importer by the use of its own trade mark and/or its 25 As established in Bristol-Myers Squibb, at paragraph 56. 26 In particular at paragraphs 111 and 113. 27 As was the case in Upjohn. 28 As was one of the objections in Boehringer.
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:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Kapitell III. Avgjørelser av Domst
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127: Kapitell III. Avgjørelser av Domst
Page 136 and 137: Kapitell Kapitell III. III. Avgjør
Page 198 and 199: Chapter III. Decisions of the Court
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?