For the half-year to 30 June 2014, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Alberto Bellan, Darren Meale and Nadia Zegze.

Two of our regular Kats are currently on blogging sabbaticals. They are David Brophy and Catherine Lee.

Friday, 13 May 2011

AG Bot says, it's not the re-boxer who matters but the boss

Sleeping on the job: Tiddles was supposed to be
checking the packaging for trade mark-friendly
markings, ahead of parallel importation
Presumably it isn't very important since the Opinion of Advocate General Yves Bot in Affaires jointes C‑400/09 et C‑207/10Orifarm A/S and Orifarm Supply A/S v Merck & Co. Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme BV, and Merck Sharp & Dohme and Paranova Danmark A/S and Paranova Pack A/S v Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Merck Sharp & Dohme and Merck Sharp & Dohme BV is only available on the Curia website in a random selection of official European Union languages that does not include Maltese, Bulgarian or English, but the IPKat wouldn't like to think that any dispute concerning the parallel importation and subsequent repackaging of pharmaceutical goods by someone other than the original trade mark owner was sufficiently important to let us all know what it is that the good M. Bot is thinking.  Merpel stifles a wicked thought: was not M. Bot nominated for public office by none other than Jacques Toubon, the eponymous pilot of the infamously anti-English Loi Toubon?  To avoid any suspicion of even the smallest connection, would it not be desirable for the Curia to ensure that all his Opinions were readily available in English and indeed in all other non-French tongues ...?

On second thoughts, it probably is a trivial case, since the Advocate General's Opinion is only 45 paragraphs long -- a veritable miniature for any dispute between a proprietary drug company and a generic one.  The conclusion of M. Bot is as follows:
«L’article 7, paragraphe 2, de la ... directive 89/104 ... rapprochant les législations des États membres sur les marques, doit être interprété en ce sens que le motif tiré de l’absence de mention sur l’emballage d’un produit reconditionné de l’entreprise qui a concrètement procédé au reconditionnement de celui-ci ne permet pas à un titulaire de marque de s’opposer à la commercialisation dudit produit lorsque figure, à côté du nom du fabricant, le nom de l’entreprise qui contrôle l’opération de reconditionnement et qui en assume la responsabilité.»
A mechanically recovered translation via Google Translate yields the following:
"Article 7, paragraph 2, of ... Directive 89/104 ... to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the ground of absence of a mention on the packaging of the repackaged product of the company that actually has repackaged the latter does not allow a trade mark owner to oppose the marketing of the product when figured, next to the name of manufacturer, is the name of the company that controls the operation of repackaging and who bears responsibility".
Well, says Merpel, I never thought it did.

Yves Bot here
Violet Elizabeth Bott here
Botulism here

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's not important if it's not available in Maltese? Where did you get that from?

Anonymous said...

After a second reading I'm starting to get it. You're asking A-G Bot to show his birth certificate, right? To avoid any suspicion, yes.

Subscribe to the IPKat's posts by email here

Just pop your email address into the box and click 'Subscribe':