COMMISSION GETS A KICKING AS ECJ AFFIRMS BAYER’S RIGHT TO CUT OFF SUPPLIES TO PARALLEL TRADERS

Press Release 01/04 of 6 January 2004 announces that the European Court of Justice has dismissed the Commission’s appeal against the decision of the Court of First Instance (CFI) in Joined Cases C-2/01 P and C-3/01 P Bundesverband der Arzneimittel-Importeure and Commission of the European Communities v Bayer AG.

In this case Bayer, one of the main European chemical and pharmaceutical groups, was represented in all Member States by national subsidiaries. It made and sold a range of medicinal products designed to treat cardio-vascular illnesses under the brand names ADALAT and ADALATE. In most EU Member States the price of medicinal products was fixed by the competent national authorities and from 1989 to 1993 the prices of ADALAT in France and Spain were about 40% lower than those charged in the UK. Those price differences led Spanish and French wholesalers to export a large quantity of ADALAT to the UK, inflicting a DM 230 million upon for the British subsidiary of Bayer. The Bayer Group then changed its supply policy and refused to meet all orders placed by Spanish and French wholesalers. Those wholesalers complained to the Commission, which ruled Bayer guilty of making competition-distorting agreements under Art. 81(3) EC and fined the group 3 million ecu.

In October 2000 the CFI annulled that decision: it found that the Commission had not proved that there was an “agreement” within the meaning of Article 81(1) between Bayer and its Spanish and French wholesalers to limit parallel exports of ADALAT to the UK. Neither the conduct of Bayer nor the attitudes of the wholesalers were factors constituting an agreement between undertakings. Moreover, none of the documents submitted by the Commission contained evidence proving (i) that Bayer intended to impose an export ban on its wholesalers or (ii) that supplies were made conditional on compliance with that alleged ban. Nor had the Commission proved that the wholesalers had adhered to that policy, their reaction showing, on the contrary, an attitude of opposition. The Commission had not therefore proved the existence of an express or tacit acquiescence by the wholesalers in the attitude adopted by the manufacturer. The CFI also rejected the Commission's argument that, to prove an agreement existed, it was sufficient to show that the parties continued to maintain their business relations, holding that the very concept of an agreement rests on a meeting of minds between economic operators. This decision has just been upheld by the ECJ in a 16,000 decision which really rubs the Commission’s nose in the dirt and asserts Bayer’s right to take the steps it did in order to protect its market for ADALAT products

The IPKat says that by not taking a narrow approach to what constitutes an agreement for the purposes of Article 81(1), the ECJ has left a practical means of escaping the effects of Article 7 of Directive 89/104 (the exhaustion provision) open for trade mark owners. He also points out that this sort of problem could occur more frequently in the future, considering that pharmaceuticals on the markets of the new accession states are sold at lower prices than those on the markets of the existing EU Member States.

More signficant parallels here, here, here, here and here

COMMISSION GETS A KICKING AS ECJ AFFIRMS BAYER’S RIGHT TO CUT OFF SUPPLIES TO PARALLEL TRADERS COMMISSION GETS A KICKING AS ECJ AFFIRMS BAYER’S RIGHT TO CUT OFF SUPPLIES TO PARALLEL TRADERS Reviewed by Jeremy and Ilanah on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.