 |
| End-of-term exhaustion of academic Kats |
As readers are no doubt aware, exhaustion of rights in IP refers to the limits on the rights to control distribution and resale of a good after it has been legitimately put on the market in a specific territory. Once a good has been marketed, depending on the territory, the IPRs (or certain aspects of it) are said to be exhausted. The UK is currently part of a regional exhaustion system, with the region being the European Economic Area (EEA). This means that goods marketed in the EEA cannot be barred from being resold/distributed across member states on the basis of IPRs, but rights holders have the ability to control imports from outside the bloc. (Some recent Kat posts on the topical issue here, here and here.)
As such, the UK IPO, is looking to determine the overall economic and social value of parallel trade arising from the current IP exhaustion regime and how this would vary across the different possible regimes.
This work will encompass multiple research projects with the current proposals looking at: the role of price differentials, sector specific impacts and enforcement impacts.
The IPO would welcome any interest in bidding for this research. Please contact Nirojan Pathmanathan (Nirojan.pathmanathan@ipo.gov.uk) for further details.
Sleepy cat image: Jon Brinn
Commissioned research opportunity - exhaustion of rights
Reviewed by Hayleigh Bosher
on
Thursday, December 07, 2017
Rating:
Reviewed by Hayleigh Bosher
on
Thursday, December 07, 2017
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] EUIPO Second Board of Appeal refers case to Grand Board of Appeal following earlier refusal to register a photograph of a man’s head/face as an EU trade mark](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUj9v-k3DYaSVMR4lsmKDLHVB5nIoINuvZNbH2TQCelrfaAE9qmGSAQs-plzQ7HnZ7Svk_gRdrIODp0Nat5vpWajduit3xkArNhK76AHhX770RIJ62thfCVI5fnvcXU-5zH4NkUSfPY9FjRMFiK7OKJ7m7YSo2FzhyPSoA8ZWCsxaOXb0bBCoPQA/s72-c/Picture%201.png)
![[Guest post] Benelux Office rules on opposition proceedings prepared by ChatGPT](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi29VY0rNNP1Hqyz8RgB47r4q7fhqQfYHxsEbX_RKmT4KU5Y_vg7vB6dsAW91CidjMfJ38klTvD4mMtZb3QmwFPAHaGF88BPttWSbfYvo7UUg7MpFRTNtEjThmG0QaX2qZFFHSnN71i3YQZSBFC0SL7PgkAlme-XH8cSNWRFbOAOuLr_LMOGcImLQ/s72-c/Screenshot%202024-12-04%20at%2020.45.58.png)
Posts
I find the purposeful inclusion of "within specific territory" to be both interesting AND to assume conclusions not necessarily present.
ReplyDeleteFor example, this topic has recently been illuminated from a US perspective in that the choice by a rights holder to obtain the benefit of the bargain and place their goods into the stream of commerce ANYWHERE serves to exhaust the IP rights on the item so placed into the steam of commerce.
As far as the US sovereign goes - there is NO "douple dip" provided with the IP laws that allows one to obtain the benefit of a first dip (placing the goods into the stream of commerce) and then - and totally outside the purview of IP - control the SECONDARY market of those goods to which the benefit of the bargain has been achieved.
I certainly hope that the naked assumption that control of secondary markets somehow evades exhaustion doctrine will be at least challenged if not outright denounced with this upcoming work.
Yup -here comes international exhaustion
ReplyDeleteCurrently, rights are exhausted within the EU by virtue of the principal of the free movement of goods and EU CTM law.
ReplyDeleteWhat was the position in the UK in respect of exhaustion of patent rights prior to EU membership? Or rather, Common Market membership!
Pseudonymous,
ReplyDeleteI am not certain the intent of your comment, but I would provide a slight "correction:"
Here comes the recognition - and rightfully so - of international exhaustion.
IP does NOT confer powers over secondary markets, nor should it. Remember, ALL of the items here, being placed in the stream of commerce by the rights holder, have been so placed at the discretion (and asking price) OF the rights holder.
Why in the world should anyone think that providing control over secondary markets and allowing Double Dipping has anything to do with patent rights or a strong patent system?