Another trade mark case has found its way on to the ECJ website but without an English version: Peak Holding AB v Axolin Elinor AB. This is an Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl on a reference concerning Article 7(1) of the trade mark harmonisation directive (Council Directive 89/104), which deals with exhaustion of rights. Does anyone know what it's about? Nb It's not available in Danish, Greek, Dutch, Finnish or any of the nine languages of the new Accession States.

IPKAT TRANSLATION WATCH IPKAT TRANSLATION WATCH Reviewed by Jeremy on Friday, May 28, 2004 Rating: 5


Anonymous said...

Chris McLeod,Hammonds:

I haven't read the whole case, but the conclusion is that "Article 7(1) of the Directive is to be interpreted as meaning that goods bearing a trade mark are not put on the market merely by being imported into the EEA and going through Customs, nor by being offered for sale in shops owned by the trade mark proprietor or companies belonging to the trade mark proprietor. A product bearing a mark is only put on the market in the EEA when an independent third party has acquired the power to dispose of this product, eg by sale.

Where a product bearing a mark is transferred to another company within the EEA it is irrelevant for the purposes of overcoming exhaustion according to Article 7(1) whether or to what extent the proprietor of the mark imposes on the acquiring party territorial sales restrictions."

Anonymous said...

Great blog! If anyone is interested in websites for sale feel free to come by my site and check it out. Thanks again!

Powered by Blogger.