IPKAT TRANSLATION WATCH


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

2 comments:

  1. 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."

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

    ReplyDelete

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.