Free movement of goods

Home > IP and other instruments > Free movement of goods

52 preliminary rulings

Judgment of 3 Dec 2020, C-62/19 (Star Taxi App)

L’article 56 TFUE, l’article 3, paragraphes 2 et 4, de la directive 2000/31 ainsi que l’article 16 de la directive 2006/123/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 12 décembre 2006, relative aux services dans le marché intérieur, doivent être interprétés en ce sens qu’ils ne s’appliquent pas à un litige dont tous les éléments pertinents se cantonnent à l’intérieur d’un seul État membre.

L’article 4 de la directive 2000/31 doit être interprété en ce sens qu’il ne s’applique pas à une réglementation d’un État membre qui subordonne la fourniture d’un service d’intermédiation, ayant pour objet, au moyen d’une application pour téléphone intelligent, de mettre en relation, contre rémunération, des personnes qui souhaitent effectuer un déplacement urbain et des chauffeurs de taxi autorisés, et relevant de la qualification de « service de la société de l’information », au sens de l’article 2, sous a), de la directive 2000/31, qui renvoie à l’article 1er, paragraphe 1, sous b), de la directive 2015/1535, à l’obtention d’une autorisation préalable à laquelle sont déjà soumis les autres prestataires de services de réservation de taxis.

Les articles 9 et 10 de la directive 2006/123 doivent être interprétés en ce sens qu’ils s’opposent à une réglementation d’un État membre qui subordonne la fourniture d’un service d’intermédiation, ayant pour objet, au moyen d’une application pour téléphone intelligent, de mettre en relation, contre rémunération, des personnes qui souhaitent effectuer un déplacement urbain et des chauffeurs de taxi autorisés, à l’obtention d’une autorisation préalable à l’exercice de leur activité, lorsque les conditions d’obtention de cette autorisation ne répondent pas aux exigences prévues à ces articles, en ce qu’elles imposent notamment des exigences techniques inadaptées au service concerné, ce qu’il appartient à la juridiction de renvoi de vérifier.

Judgment of 18 Nov 2003, C-216/01 (Budvar)

Article 28 EC and Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 535/97 of 17 March 1997, do not preclude the application of a provision of a bilateral agreement between a Member State and a non-member country under which a simple and indirect indication of geographical origin from that non-member country is accorded protection in the importing Member State, whether or not there is any risk of consumers being misled, and the import of a product lawfully marketed in another Member State may be prevented.

Article 28 EC precludes the application of a provision of a bilateral agreement between a Member State and a non-member country under which a name which in that country does not directly or indirectly refer to the geographical source of the product that it designates is accorded protection in the importing Member State, whether or not there is any risk of consumers being misled, and the import of a product lawfully marketed in another Member State may be prevented.

Judgment of 23 Oct 2003, C-115/02 (Rioglass)

Article 28 EC is to be interpreted as precluding the implementation, pursuant to a legislative measure of a Member State concerning intellectual property, of procedures for detention by the customs authorities of goods lawfully manufactured in another Member State and intended, following their transit through the territory of the first Member State, to be placed on the market in a non-member country.

Judgment of 20 May 2003, C-108/01 (Prosciutto di Parma)

Where the use of the protected designation of origin Prosciutto di Parma for ham marketed in slices is made subject to the condition that slicing and packaging operations be carried out in the region of production, this constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports within the meaning of Article 29 EC, but may be regarded as justified, and hence compatible with that provision.

However, the condition in question cannot be relied on against economic operators, as it was not brought to their attention by adequate publicity in Community legislation. Rodr

Judgment of 12 Oct 1999, C-379/97 (Paranova)

The condition of artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States, as laid down in the judgments in Case 102/77 Hoffmann-La Roche v Centrafarm [1978] ECR 1139 and in Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93 Bristol-Myers Squibb and Others v Paranova [1996] ECR I-3457, means that it is necessary, in order to determine whether the proprietor of a trade mark may, under national law, prevent a parallel importer of pharmaceutical products from replacing the trade mark used in the Member State of export by that which the proprietor uses in the Member State of import, to assess whether the circumstances prevailing at the time of marketing in the Member State of import make it objectively necessary to replace the original trade mark by that used in the Member State of import in order that the product in question may be marketed in that State by the parallel importer.

Judgment of 21 Sep 1999, C-44/98 (BASF)

Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) does notpreclude the application of provisions such as Article II(3) of the Gesetz überinternationale Patentübereinkommen, according to which a patent granted by theEuropean Patent Office with effect in a Member State which is drafted in alanguage other than the official language of that Member State is to be deemedvoid ab initio if the patent holder does not file with the patent office of the MemberState in question a translation of the patent specification in the official languageof that Member State within three months of the publication in the EuropeanPatent Bulletin of the mention of the grant of the patent.

Judgment of 11 May 1999, C-255/97 (Pfeiffer)

Articles 30 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 43 EC) do not preclude a provision of national law which prohibits, where there is a risk of confusion, the use of a trade name as the specific designation of an undertaking.

Judgment of 4 Mar 1999, C-87/97 (Gorgonzola)

In the present state of Community law, the principle of the free movement of goods does not preclude Member States from taking the measures incumbent upon them in order to ensure the protection of designations of origin registered under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs. Use of a name such as `Cambozola' may therefore be deemed, for the purposes of Article 13(1)(b) of that regulation, to evoke the protected designation of origin `Gorgonzola', irrespective of the fact that the packaging indicates the product's true origin. It is for the national court to decide whether, on the facts, the conditions laid down in Article 14(2) of Regulation No 2081/92 allow use of an earlier trade mark to continue notwithstanding the registration of the protected designation of origin `Gorgonzola', having regard in particular to the law in force at the time of registration of the trade mark, in order to determine whether such registration could have been made in good faith, on the basis that use of a name such as `Cambozola' does not, per se, constitute an attempt to deceive the consumer.

Judgment of 22 Sep 1998, C-61/97 (Laserdisken)

It is not contrary to Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty or to Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property for the holder of an exclusive rental right to prohibit copies of a film from being offered for rental in a Member State even where the offering of those copies for rental has been authorised in the territory of another Member State.

Judgment of 11 Nov 1997, C-349/95 (Loendersloot)

Article 36 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that the owner of trade mark rights may, even if that constitutes a barrier to intra-Community trade, rely on those rights to prevent a third party from removing and then reaffixing or replacing labels bearing the mark which the owner has himself affixed to products he has put on the Community market, unless: - it is established that the use of the trade mark rights by the owner to oppose the marketing of the relabelled products under that trade mark would contribute to artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States; - it is shown that the relabelling cannot affect the original condition of the product; - the presentation of the relabelled product is not such as to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark and its owner; and - the person who relabels the products informs the trade mark owner of the relabelling before the relabelled products are put on sale.

Judgment of 4 Nov 1997, C-337/95 (Dior / Evora)

On a proper interpretation of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty, the proprietor of a trade mark or holder of copyright may not oppose their use by a reseller who habitually markets articles of the same kind, but not necessarily of the same quality, as the protected goods, in ways customary in the reseller's sector of trade, for the purpose of bringing to the public's attention the further commercialization of those goods, unless it is established that, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case, the use of those goods for that purpose seriously damages their reputation.

Judgment of 9 Jul 1997, C-316/95 (Generics)

Application of a rule of national law which gives the proprietor of a patent in respect of a manufacturing process for a medicinal product the right to oppose the submission by another person of samples of medicinal products manufactured in accordance with that process to the authority competent for issuing marketing authorizations constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction within the meaning of Article 30 of the EC Treaty.

Application of a rule of national law which gives the proprietor of a patent in respect of a manufacturing process for a medicinal product the right to oppose the submission by another person of samples of medicinal products, manufactured in accordance with that process by a person other than the patentee, to the authority competent for issuing marketing authorizations, is justified under Article 36 of the EC Treaty.

When a person other than the patentee has infringed the patent laws of a Member State by submitting samples of a medicinal product manufactured in accordance with a patented process to the authority competent for issuing marketing authorizations and has thus obtained the authorization sought, an order of a national court prohibiting the infringer from marketing such a product for a specified period following the expiry of the patent in order to prevent him from deriving any unfair profit from his infringement constitutes a measure having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 30 of the EC Treaty capable of being justified under Article 36 of that Treaty.

Where the submission of samples of a medicinal product to the competent authority with a view to obtaining a marketing authorization has given rise to a patent infringement, Community law, and in particular Article 36 of the Treaty, does not preclude a national court from prohibiting the infringer from marketing that product for 14 months after the expiry of the patent in question, when that period, although exceeding the maximum period authorized by Article 7 of Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products, read in conjunction with Article 4(c) of Council Directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products, for the procedure for granting a marketing authorization, corresponds to the actual average duration of such a procedure in the Member State concerned.

Judgment of 5 Dec 1996, C-267/95 (Merck & Co)

The transitional periods provided for in Articles 47 and 209 of the Act concerning the Conditions of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and the Adjustments of the Treaties expired on 6 October 1995 in the case of the Kingdom of Spain and on 31 December 1994 in the case of the Portuguese Republic.

Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty preclude application of national legislation which grants the holder of a patent for a pharmaceutical product the right to oppose importation by a third party of that product from another Member State in circumstances where the holder first put the product on the market in that State after its accession to the European Community but before the product could be protected by a patent in that State, unless the holder of the patent can prove that he is under a genuine, existing legal obligation to market the product in that Member State.

Judgment of 26 Nov 1996, C-313/94 (Fratelli Graffione)

1. Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty are to be interpreted as

Judgment of 11 Jul 1996, C-232/94 (MPA Pharma)

Article 36 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark owner may rely upon his rights as owner to prevent an importer from marketing a pharmaceutical product which was put on the market in another Member State by the owner or with his consent, where that importer has repackaged the product and reaffixed the trade mark thereto, unless:
° it is established that reliance on trade mark rights by the owner in order to oppose the marketing of repackaged products under that trade mark would contribute to the artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States; such is the case, in particular, where the owner has put an identical pharmaceutical product on the market in several Member States in various forms of packaging, and the repackaging carried out by the importer is necessary in order to market the product in the Member State of importation, and also carried out in such conditions that the original condition of the product cannot be affected by it; that requirement does not, however, imply that it must be established that the trade mark owner deliberately sought to partition the markets between Member States;
° it is shown that the repackaging cannot affect the original condition of the product inside the packaging; such is the case, in particular, where the importer has merely carried out operations involving no risk of the product being affected, such as, for example, the removal of blister packs from their original external packaging and their insertion into new external packaging, or the addition to the packaging of new user instructions or information; it is for the national court to verify that the original condition of the product inside the packaging is not indirectly affected, for example, by the fact that the external or inner packaging of the repackaged product or new user instructions or information omits certain important information or gives inaccurate information;
° the new packaging clearly states who repackaged the product and the name of the manufacturer in print such that a person with normal eyesight, exercising a normal degree of attentiveness, would be in a position to understand; however, it is not necessary to indicate that the repackaging was carried out without the authorization of the trade mark owner;
° the presentation of the repackaged product is not such as to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark and of its owner; thus, the packaging must not be defective, of poor quality, or untidy; and
° the importer gives notice to the trade mark owner before the repackaged product is put on sale, and, on demand, supplies him with a specimen of the repackaged product.

Judgment of 11 Jul 1996, C-71/94 (Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel)

Judgment of 22 Jun 1994, C-9/93 (Ideal Standard)

There is no unlawful restriction on trade between Member States within the meaning of Articles 30 and 36 where a subsidiary operating in Member State A of a manufacturer established in Member State B is to be enjoined from using as a trade mark the name "Ideal Standard" because of the risk of confusion with a device having the same origin, even if the manufacturer is lawfully using that name in his country of origin under a trade mark protected there, he acquired that trade mark by assignment and the trade mark originally belonged to a company affiliated to the undertaking which, in Member State A, opposes the importation of goods bearing the trade mark "Ideal Standard".

Judgment of 30 Nov 1993, C-317/91 (Deutsche Renault)

It does not represent an unlawful restriction of intra-Community trade for the purposes of Articles 30 and 36 of the EEC Treaty if a subsidiary trading in Member State A of an automobile manufacturer established in Member State B is prohibited from using as a mark in Member State A the designation "Quadra", which the manufacturer has hitherto used without restriction for a four-wheel-drive motor vehicle, both in its own State and elsewhere, on the ground that another automobile manufacturer in Member State A claims - validly under the internal law of Member State A - a trade-mark right ("Warenzeichenrecht") and/or a right to a get-up ("Ausstattungsrecht") in the word "Quattro", even though that word denotes a numeral in another Member State and that meaning is clearly discernible in other Member States, and even though the number 4 thereby designated plays a significant and varied role in automobile manufacturing and the automobile trade.

Judgment of 10 Nov 1992, C-3/91 (Exportur)

Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty do not preclude the application of rules laid down by a bilateral convention between Member States on the protection of indications of provenance and designations of origin, such as the Franco-Spanish Convention of 27 June 1973, provided that the protected names have not, either at the time of the entry into force of that Convention or subsequently, become generic in the country of origin.

Judgment of 27 Oct 1992, C-191/90 (Generics (UK) Ltd )

Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty must be interpreted as precluding the authorities of Member States competent to settle, in the absence of agreement, the terms of licences of right from relying upon provisions of national legislation in order to refuse the licensee of right authorization to import the patented product from non-member countries where the proprietor of the patent manufactures the product within the national territory and in order to grant such authorization where the proprietor of the patent works his patent by importing the product from other Member States of the Community.

Articles 47 and 209 of the Act concerning the conditions of the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties must be interpreted to the effect that the authorities of the Member States competent to settle, in the absence of agreement, the conditions of licences of right may, on the basis of those provisions and in derogation from the principles laid down by Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty, prohibit the licensee from importing from Spain and Portugal a patented pharmaceutical product if national law confers upon the proprietor of the patent the right to prevent imports and if the proprietor exercises the right conferred upon him by Articles 47 and 209.

Judgment of 9 Jun 1992, C-47/90 (Delhaize)

National provisions applicable to wine of designated origin which limit the quantity of wine that may be exported in bulk but otherwise permit sales of wine in bulk within the region of production constitute measures having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports which are prohibited by Article 34 of the EEC Treaty.

Article 34 of the EEC Treaty may be relied on by individuals before the courts of the Member State in disputes against other individuals.

Judgment of 13 Dec 1990, C-238/89 (Pall Corp.)

Article 30 of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as precluding the application of a national provision on unfair competition which enables an economic operator to obtain a prohibition in the territory of a Member State on the marketing of a product bearing the letter ( R ) in a circle next to the trade mark, if that trade mark is not registered in that State but in another.

Judgment of 12 Dec 1990, C-270/86 (Cholay)

Articles 30 and 36 of the EEC Treaty, on a true construction, do not preclude the application of national legislation allowing a national copyright-management society to charge a royalty called a "supplementary mechanical reproduction fee", in addition to a performance royalty, on the public performance of sound recordings, even where such a supplementary fee is not provided for in the Member State where those sound recordings were lawfully placed on the market .

Judgment of 17 Oct 1990, C-10/89 (CNL-SUCAL)

Articles 30 and 36 of the EEC Treaty do not preclude national legislation from allowing an undertaking which is the proprietor of a trade mark in a Member State to oppose the importation from another Member State of similar goods lawfully bearing in the latter State an identical trade mark or one which is liable to be confused with the protected mark, even if the mark under which the goods in dispute are imported originally belonged to a subsidiary of the undertaking which opposes the importation and was acquired by a third undertaking following the expropriation of that subsidiary .

Judgment of 13 Jul 1989, C-395/87 (Tournier)

Articles 30 and 59 of the Treaty must be interpreted as not preventing the application of national legislation which treats as an infringement of copyright the public performance of a protected musical work by means of sound recordings without payment of royalties, where royalties have already been paid to the author, for the reproduction of the work, in another Member State .

Judgment of 18 May 1989, C-266/87 (RPSGB)

A national rule of a Member State requiring a pharmacist, in response to a prescription calling for a medicinal product by its trade mark or proprietary name, to dispense only a product bearing that trade mark or proprietary name may be justified under Article 36 of the Treaty on grounds of the protection of public health even where the effect of such a rule is to prevent the pharmacist from dispensing a therapeutically equivalent product licensed by the competent national authorities pursuant to rules adopted in conformity with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 20 May 1976 in Case 104/75 and manufactured by the same company or group of companies or by a licensee of that company but bearing a trade mark or proprietary name applied to it in another Member State which differs from the trade mark or proprietary name appearing in the prescription .

Judgment of 24 Jan 1989, C-341/87 (EMI Electrola)

Articles 30 and 36 of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as not precluding the application of a Member State' s legislation which allows a producer of sound recordings in that Member State to rely on the exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute certain musical works of which he is the owner in order to prohibit the sale, in the territory of that Member State, of sound recordings of the same musical works when those recordings are imported from another Member State in which they were lawfully marketed without the consent of the aforesaid owner or his licensee and in which the producer of those recordings had enjoyed protection which has in the mean time expired .

Judgment of 5 Oct 1988, C-53/87 (Maxicar)

he rules on the free movement of goods do not preclude the application of national legislation under which a car manufacturer who holds protective rights in an ornamental design in respect of spare parts intended for cars of its manufacture is entitled to prohibit third parties from manufacturing parts covered by those rights for the purpose of sale on the domestic market or for exportation or to prevent the importation from other Member States of parts covered by those rights which have been manufactured there without his consent .

The mere fact of obtaining protective rights in respect of ornamental designs for car bodywork components does not constitute an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 86 of the Treaty . The exercise of the corresponding exclusive right may be prohibited by Article 86 of the Treaty if it involves, on the part of an undertaking holding a dominant position, certain abusive conduct such as the arbitrary refusal to supply spare parts to independent repairers, the fixing of prices for spare parts at an unfair level or a decision no longer to produce spare parts for a particular model even though many cars of that model are still in circulation, provided that such conduct is liable to affect trade between Member States .

Judgment of 30 Jun 1988, C-35/87 (Thetford Corporation)

In the present state of Community law, Article 36 does not preclude the application of a Member State's legislation on patents which provides that a patent granted for an invention may not be declared invalid by reason only of the fact that the invention in question appears in a patent specification filed more than 50 years previously.

Where national law normally provides for the issue of an injunction to prevent any infringement, that measure is justified under Article 36.

Judgment of 17 May 1988, C-158/86 (Warner Brothers)

Articles 30 and 36 of the EEC Treaty do not prohibit the application of national legislation which gives an author the right to make the hiring-out of video-cassettes subject to his permission, when the video-cassettes in question have already been put into circulation with his consent in another Member State whose legislation enables the author to control the initial sale, without giving him the right to prohibit hiring-out .

Judgment of 3 Mar 1988, C-434/85 (Allen and Hanburys)

ARTICLES 30 AND 36 OF THE TREATY MUST BE INTERPRETED AS PRECLUDING THE COURTS OF A MEMBER STATE FROM ISSUING AN INJUNCTION PROHIBITING THE IMPORTATION FROM ANOTHER MEMBER STATE OF A PRODUCT WHICH INFRINGES A PATENT ENDORSED "LICENCES OF RIGHT" AGAINST AN IMPORTER WHO HAS UNDERTAKEN TO TAKE A LICENCE ON THE TERMS PRESCRIBED BY LAW WHERE NO SUCH INJUNCTION MAY BE ISSUED IN THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES AGAINST AN INFRINGER WHO MANUFACTURES THE PRODUCT IN THE NATIONAL TERRITORY .

ARTICLES 30 AND 36 OF THE TREATY MUST BE INTERPRETED AS PROHIBITING THE COMPETENT ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES FROM IMPOSING ON A LICENSEE TERMS IMPEDING THE IMPORTATION FROM OTHER MEMBER STATES OF A PRODUCT COVERED BY A PATENT ENDORSED "LICENCES OF RIGHT" WHERE THOSE AUTHORITIES MAY NOT REFUSE TO GRANT A LICENCE TO AN UNDERTAKING WHICH WOULD MANUFACTURE THE PRODUCT IN THE NATIONAL TERRITORY AND MARKET IT THERE .

THE REPLIES TO THE FIRST AND SECOND QUESTIONS ARE NOT AFFECTED BY THE FACT THAT THE PRODUCT IN QUESTION IS A PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT AND COMES FROM A MEMBER STATE WHERE IT IS NOT PATENTABLE .

A PROHIBITION ON IMPORTATION CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED ON GROUNDS OF IMPERATIVE REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO CONSUMER PROTECTION OR FAIR TRADING WHERE THE NATIONAL LEGISLATION ON WHICH IT IS BASED IS NOT APPLICABLE WITHOUT DISTINCTION TO DOMESTIC AND IMPORTED PRODUCTS .

Judgment of 9 Apr 1987, C-402/85 (Basset)

ARTICLES 30 AND 36 OF THE EEC TREATY, ON A TRUE CONSTRUCTION, DO NOT PRECLUDE THE APPLICATION OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION ALLOWING A NATIONAL COPYRIGHT-MANAGEMENT SOCIETY TO CHARGE A ROYALTY CALLED A "SUPPLEMENTARY MECHANICAL REPRODUCTION FEE", IN ADDITION TO A PERFORMANCE ROYALTY, ON THE PUBLIC PERFORMANCE OF SOUND RECORDINGS, EVEN WHERE SUCH A SUPPLEMENTARY FEE IS NOT PROVIDED FOR IN THE MEMBER STATE WHERE THOSE SOUND RECORDINGS WERE LAWFULLY PLACED ON THE MARKET .

Judgment of 11 Jul 1985, C-60/84 (Cinéthèque )

ARTICLE 30 OF THE EEC TREATY DOES NOT APPLY TO NATIONAL LEGISLATION WHICH REGULATES THE DISTRIBUTION OF CINEMATOGRAPHIC WORKS BY IMPOSING AN INTERVAL BETWEEN ONE MODE OF DISTRIBUTING SUCH WORKS AND ANOTHER BY PROHIBITING THEIR SIMULTANEOUS EXPLOITATION IN CINEMAS AND IN VIDEO-CASSETTE FORM FOR A LIMITED PERIOD , PROVIDED THAT THE PROHIBITION APPLIES TO DOMESTICALLY PRODUCED AND IMPORTED CASSETTES ALIKE AND ANY BARRIERS TO INTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE TO WHICH ITS IMPLEMENTATION MAY GIVE RISE DO NOT EXCEED WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR ENSURING THAT THE EXPLOITATION IN CINEMAS OF CINEMATOGRAPHIC WORKS OF ALL ORIGINS RETAINS PRIORITY OVER OTHER MEANS OF DISTRIBUTION .

Judgment of 9 Jul 1985, C-19/84 (Pharmon)

ARTICLES 30 AND 36 OF THE EEC TREATY DO NOT PRECLUDE THE APPLICATION OF LEGAL PROVISIONS OF A MEMBER STATE WHICH GIVE A PATENT PROPRIETOR THE RIGHT TO PREVENT THE MARKETING IN THAT STATE OF A PRODUCT WHICH HAS BEEN MANUFACTURED IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE BY THE HOLDER OF A COMPULSORY LICENCE GRANTED IN RESPECT OF A PARALLEL PATENT HELD BY THE SAME PROPRIETOR.

IN THAT RESPECT , IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHETHER A PROHIBITION ON EXPORTATION IS ATTACHED TO THE COMPULSORY LICENCE , WHETHER THAT LICENCE FIXES ROYALTIES PAYABLE TO THE PATENTEE OR WHETHER THE PATENTEE HAS ACCEPTED OR REFUSED SUCH ROYALTIES .

Judgment of 6 Nov 1984, C-177/83 (Kohl)

THE PROHIBITIONS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 30 OF THE EEC TREATY APPLY TO A MEMBER STATE ' S LEGISLATION ON UNFAIR COMPETITION IN SO FAR AS IT MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO PROHIBIT THE USE , BY AN UNDERTAKING ESTABLISHED IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE , OF A DISTINCTIVE SYMBOL LAWFULLY USED IN THAT OTHER MEMBER STATE , ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THE SYMBOL WAS FORMERLY USED BY A GROUP OF UNDERTAKINGS TO WHICH IT BELONGED , IN COMMON WITH AN UNDER TAKING ESTABLISHED IN THE FIRST MEMBER STATE WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN WOUND UP , AND THAT THE SYMBOL MIGHT THEREFORE BE REGARDED BY THE PUBLIC AS A REFERENCE TO THE DEFUNCT UNDERTAKING OR GROUP .

Judgment of 13 Mar 1984, C-16/83 (Prantl)

ARTICLE 30 OF THE EEC TREATY MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT THE APPLICATION BY A MEMBER STATE TO IMPORTS OF WINE ORGINATING IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE OF LEGISLATION ALLOWING ONLY CERTAIN NATIONAL PRODUCERS TO USE A SPECIFIC SHAPE OF BOTTLE WHEN THE USE OF THAT SHAPE OR A SIMILAR SHAPE OF BOTTLE ACCORDS WITH A FAIR AND TRADITIONAL PRACTICE IN THE STATE OF ORIGIN CONSTITUTES A MEASURE HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO A QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTION.

ARTICLE 36 OF THE EEC TREATY MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT MEASURES HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON IMPORTS ARISING FROM THE FACT THAT NATIONAL LEGISLATION PERMITS A SPECIFIC SHAPE OF WINE-BOTTLE TO BE USED ONLY BY CERTAIN NATIONAL PRODUCERS OR DEALERS CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED ON GROUNDS OF PUBLIC POLICY , WHETHER OR NOT THE LEGISLATION CARRIES PENAL SANCTIONS ; NOR CAN THEY BE JUSTIFIED BY THE PROTECTION OF INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH A BOTTLE IS TRADITIONALLY USED BY NATIONAL PRODUCERS IF IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR BOTTLES ARE USED IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A FAIR AND TRADITIONAL PRACTICE FOR MARKETING WINES PRODUCED IN THAT STATE.

Judgment of 14 Sep 1982, C-144/81 (Keurkoop)

NATIONAL LEGISLATION HAVING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE UNIFORM BENELUX LAW ON DESIGNS FALLS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 36 OF THE TREATY ON THE PROTECTION OF INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY . IN THE PRESENT STATE OF ITS DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY LAW DOES NOT PREVENT THE ADOPTION OF NATIONAL PROVISIONS OF THE KIND CONTAINED IN THE UNIFORM BENELUX LAW , AS DESCRIBED BY THE NATIONAL COURT .

THE PROPRIETOR OF A RIGHT TO A DESIGN ACQUIRED UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF A MEMBER STATE MAY PREVENT THE IMPORTATION OF PRODUCTS FROM ANOTHER MEMBER STATE WHICH ARE IDENTICAL IN APPEARANCE TO THE DESIGN WHICH HAS BEEN FILED , PROVIDED THAT THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION HAVE NOT BEEN PUT INTO CIRCULATION IN THE OTHER MEMBER STATES BY , OR WITH THE CONSENT OF , THE PROPRIETOR OF A RIGHT OR A PERSON LEGALLY OR ECONOMICALLY DEPENDENT ON HIM , THAT AS BETWEEN THE NATURAL OR LEGAL PERSONS IN QUESTION THERE IS NO KIND OF AGREEMENT OR CONCERTED PRACTICE IN RESTRAINT OF COMPETITION AND FINALLY THAT THE RESPECTIVE RIGHTS OF THE PROPRIETORS OF THE RIGHT TO THE DESIGN IN THE VARIOUS MEMBER STATES WERE CREATED INDEPENDENTLY OF ONE ANOTHER.

Judgment of 9 Feb 1982, C-270/80 (Polydor)

THE ENFORCEMENT BY THE PROPRIETOR OR BY PERSONS ENTITLED UNDER HIM OF COPYRIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE LAW OF A MEMBER STATE AGAINST THE IMPORTATION AND MARKETING OF GRAMOPHONE RECORDS LAWFULLY MANUFACTURED AND PLACED ON THE MARKET IN THE PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC BY LICENSEES OF THE PROPRIETOR IS JUSTIFIED ON THE GROUND OF THE PROTECTION OF INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 23 OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY AND THE PORTUGUESE REPUBLIC OF 22 JULY 1972 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1972 ( 31 DECEMBER ) ( L 301 ), P . 167 ) AND THEREFORE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A RESTRICTION ON TRADE SUCH AS IS PROHIBITED BY ARTICLE 14 ( 2 ) OF THAT AGREEMENT . SUCH ENFORCEMENT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A MEANS OF ARBITRARY DISCRIMINATION OR A DISGUISED RESTRICTION ON TRADE BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND PORTUGAL WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SAID ARTICLE 23 .

Judgment of 3 Dec 1981, C-1/81 (Pfizer / Eurim)

ARTICLE 36 OF THE TREATY MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT THE PROPRIETOR OF A TRADE-MARK RIGHT MAY NOT RELY ON THAT RIGHT IN ORDER TO PREVENT AN IMPORTER FROM MARKETING A PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT MANUFACTURED IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE BY THE SUBSIDIARY OF THE PROPRIETOR AND BEARING THE LATTER ' S TRADE MARK WITH HIS CONSENT , WHERE THE IMPORTER , IN RE-PACKAGING THE PRODUCT , CONFINED HIMSELF TO REPLACING THE EXTERNAL WRAPPING WITHOUT TOUCHING THE INTERNAL PACKAGING AND MADE THE TRADE MARK AFFIXED BY THE MANUFACTURER TO THE INTERNAL PACKAGING VISIBLE THROUGH THE NEW EXTERNAL WRAPPING AT THE SAME TIME CLEARLY INDICATING ON THE EXTERNAL WRAPPING THAT THE PRODUCT WAS MANUFACTURED BY THE SUBSIDIARY OF THE PROPRIETOR AND RE-PACKAGED BY THE IMPORTER .

Judgment of 14 Jul 1981, C-187/80 (Merck / Stephar)

THE RULES CONTAINED IN THE EEC TREATY CONCERNING THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS , INCLUDING THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 36 , MUST BE INTERPRETED AS PREVENTING THE PROPRIETOR OF A PATENT FOR A MEDICINAL PREPARATION WHO SELLS THE PREPARATION IN ONE MEMBER STATE WHERE PATENT PROTECTION EXISTS , AND THEN MARKETS IT HIMSELF IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE WHERE THERE IS NO SUCH PROTECTION , FROM AVAILING HIMSELF OF THE RIGHT CONFERRED BY THE LEGISLATION OF THE FIRST MEMBER STATE TO PREVENT THE MARKETING IN THAT STATE OF THE SAID PREPARATION IMPORTED FROM THE OTHER MEMBER STATE .

Judgment of 22 Jan 1981, C-58/80 (Dansk Supermarked)

ARTICLES 30 AND 36 OF THE EEC TREATY MUST BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES OF A MEMBER STATE MAY NOT PROHIBIT , ON THE BASIS OF A COPYRIGHT OR OF A TRADE MARK , THE MARKETING ON THE TERRITORY OF THAT STATE OF A PRODUCT TO WHICH ONE OF THOSE RIGHTS APPLIES IF THAT PRODUCT HAS BEEN LAWFULLY MARKETED ON THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE BY THE PROPRIETOR OF SUCH RIGHTS OR WITH HIS CONSENT.

Judgment of 20 Jan 1981, C-55/80 (Musik-Vertrieb)

ARTICLES 30 AND 36 OF THE TREATY MUST BE INTERPRETED AS PRECLUDING THE APPLICATION OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION UNDER WHICH A COPYRIGHT MANAGEMENT SOCIETY EMPOWERED TO EXERCISE THE COPYRIGHTS OF COMPOSERS OF MUSICAL WORKS REPRODUCED ON GRAMOPHONE RECORDS OR OTHER SOUND RECORDINGS IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE IS PERMITTED TO INVOKE THOSE RIGHTS WHERE THOSE SOUND RECORDINGS ARE DISTRIBUTED ON THE NATIONAL MARKET AFTER HAVING BEEN PUT INTO CIRCULATION IN THAT OTHER MEMBER STATE BY OR WITH THE CONSENT OF THE OWNERS OF THOSE COPYRIGHTS , IN ORDER TO CLAIM THE PAYMENT OF A FEE EQUAL TO THE ROYALTIES ORDINARLY PAID FOR MARKETING ON THE NATIONAL MARKET LESS THE LOWER ROYALTIES PAID IN THE MEMBER STATE OF MANUFACTURE.

Judgment of 18 Mar 1980, C-62/79 (Coditel)

THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY RELATING TO THE FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES DO NOT PRECLUDE AN ASSIGNEE OF THE PERFORMING RIGHT IN A CINEMATOGRAPHIC FILM IN A MEMBER STATE FROM RELYING UPON HIS RIGHT TO PROHIBIT THE EXHIBITION OF THAT FILM IN THAT STATE , WITHOUT HIS AUTHORITY , BY MEANS OF CABLE DIFFUSION IF THE FILM SO EXHIBITED IS PICKED UP AND TRANSMITTED AFTER BEING BROADCAST IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE BY A THIRD PARTY WITH THE CONSENT OF THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF THE RIGHT.

Judgment of 10 Oct 1978, C-3/78 (Centrafarm / AHPC)

( A ) THE PROPRIETOR OF A TRADE-MARK WHICH IS PROTECTED IN ONE MEMBER STATE IS JUSTIFIED PURSUANT TO THE FIRST SENTENCE OF ARTICLE 36 IN PREVENTING A PRODUCT FROM BEING MARKETED BY A THIRD PARTY EVEN IF PREVIOUSLY THAT PRODUCT HAS BEEN LAWFULLY MARKETED IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE UNDER ANOTHER MARK HELD IN THE LATTER STATE BY THE SAME PROPRIETOR .
( B ) NEVERTHELESS SUCH PREVENTION MAY CONSTITUTE A DISGUISED RESTRICTION ON TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECOND SENTENCE OF ARTICLE 36 OF THE TREATY IF IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE PROPRIETOR OF DIFFERENT MARKS HAS FOLLOWED THE PRACTICE OF USING SUCH MARKS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARTIFICIALLY PARTITIONING THE MARKETS.

THE PROVISIONS ON THE NAMES UNDER WHICH PROPRIETARY MEDICINAL PRODUCTS MAY BE MARKETED ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE ABOVE REPLY.

Judgment of 23 May 1978, C-102/77 (Hoffmann-La Roche)

( A ) THE PROPRIETOR OF A TRADE-MARK RIGHT WHICH IS PROTECTED IN TWO MEMBER STATES AT THE SAME TIME IS JUSTIFIED PURSUANT TO THE FIRST SENTENCE OF ARTICLE 36 OF THE EEC TREATY IN PREVENTING A PRODUCT TO WHICH THE TRADE-MARK HAS LAWFULLY BEEN APPLIED IN ONE OF THOSE STATES FROM BEING MARKETED IN THE OTHER MEMBER STATE AFTER IT HAS BEEN REPACKED IN NEW PACKAGING TO WHICH THE TRADE-MARK HAS BEEN AFFIXED BY A THIRD PARTY.
( B ) HOWEVER , SUCH PREVENTION OF MARKETING CONSTITUTES A DISGUISED RESTRICTION ON TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SECOND SENTENCE OF ARTICLE 36 WHERE :
- IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE USE OF THE TRADE-MARK RIGHT BY THE PROPRIETOR , HAVING REGARD TO THE MARKETING SYSTEM WHICH HE HAS ADOPTED , WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE ARTIFICIAL PARTITIONING OF THE MARKETS BETWEEN MEMBER STATES ;
- IT IS SHOWN THAT THE REPACKAGING CANNOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ORIGINAL CONDITION OF THE PRODUCT ;
- THE PROPRIETOR OF THE MARK RECEIVES PRIOR NOTICE OF THE MARKETING OF THE REPACKAGED PRODUCT ; AND
- IT IS STATED ON THE NEW PACKAGING BY WHOM THE PRODUCT HAS BEEN REPACKAGED.

TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE EXERCISE OF A TRADE-MARK RIGHT IS LAWFUL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 36 OF THE TREATY , SUCH EXERCISE IS NOT CONTRARY TO ARTICLE 86 OF THE TREATY ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT IT IS ACT OF AN UNDERTAKING OCCUPYING A DOMINANT POSITION ON THE MARKET IF THE TRADE-MARK RIGHT HAS NOT BEEN USED AS AN INSTRUMENT FOR THE ABUSE OF SUCH A POSITION.

Judgment of 22 Jun 1976, C-119/75 (Terrapin)

IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE EEC TREATY RELATING TO THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS FOR AN UNDERTAKING ESTABLISHED IN A MEMBER STATE , BY VIRTUE OF A RIGHT TO A TRADE-MARK AND A RIGHT TO A COMMERCIAL NAME WHICH ARE PROTECTED BY THE LEGISLATION OF THAT STATE , TO PREVENT THE IMPORTATION OF PRODUCTS OF AN UNDERTAKING ESTABLISHED IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE AND BEARING BY VIRTUE OF THE LEGISLATION OF THAT STATE A NAME GIVING RISE TO CONFUSION WITH THE TRADE-MARK AND COMMERCIAL NAME OF THE FIRST UNDERTAKING , PROVIDED THAT THERE ARE NO AGREEMENTS RESTRICTING COMPETITION AND NO LEGAL OR ECONOMIC TIES BETWEEN THE UNDERTAKINGS AND THAT THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS HAVE ARISEN INDEPENDENTLY OF ONE ANOTHER.

Judgment of 15 Jun 1976, C-96/75 (EMI / CBS)

THE PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY LAW AND THE PROVISIONS ON THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS AND ON COMPETITION DO NOT PROHIBIT THE PROPRIETOR OF THE SAME MARK IN ALL THE MEMBER STATES OF THE COMMUNITY FROM EXERCISING HIS TRADE-MARK RIGHTS , RECOGNIZED BY THE NATIONAL LAWS OF EACH MEMBER STATE , IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE SALE IN THE COMMUNITY BY A THIRD PARTY OF PRODUCTS BEARING THE SAME MARK , WHICH IS OWNED IN A THIRD COUNTRY , PROVIDED THAT THE EXERCISE OF THE SAID RIGHTS DOES NOT MANIFEST ITSELF AS THE RESULT OF AN AGREEMENT OR OF CONCERTED PRACTICES WHICH HAVE AS THEIR OBJECT OR EFFECT THE ISOLATION OR PARTITIONING OF THE COMMON MARKET .

IN SO FAR AS THAT CONDITION IS FULFILLED THE REQUIREMENT THAT SUCH THIRD PARTY MUST , FOR THE PURPOSES OF HIS EXPORTS TO THE COMMUNITY , OBLITERATE THE MARK ON THE PRODUCTS CONCERNED AND PERHAPS APPLY A DIFFERENT MARK FORMS PART OF THE PERMISSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROTECTION WHICH THE NATIONAL LAWS OF EACH MEMBER STATE AFFORD TO THE PROPRIETOR OF THE MARK AGAINST THE IMPORTATION OF PRODUCTS FROM THIRD COUNTRIES BEARING A SIMILAR OR IDENTICAL MARK .

Judgment of 15 Jun 1976, C-86/75 (EMI / CBS)

Judgment of 15 Jun 1976, C-51/75 (EMI Records)

THE PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY LAW AND THE PROVISIONS ON THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS AND ON COMPETITION DO NOT PROHIBIT THE PROPRIETOR OF THE SAME MARK IN ALL THE MEMBER STATES OF THE COMMUNITY FROM EXERCISING HIS TRADE-MARK RIGHTS , RECOGNIZED BY THE NATIONAL LAWS OF EACH MEMBER STATE , IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE SALE OR MANUFACTURE IN THE COMMUNITY BY A THIRD PARTY OF PRODUCTS BEARING THE SAME MARK , WHICH IS OWNED IN A THIRD COUNTRY , PROVIDED THAT THE EXERCISE OF THE SAID RIGHTS DOES NOT MANIFEST ITSELF AS THE RESULT OF AN AGREEMENT OR OF CONCERTED PRACTICES WHICH HAVE AS THEIR OBJECT OR EFFECT THE ISOLATION OR PARTITIONING OF THE COMMON MARKET .

Judgment of 31 Oct 1974, C-16/74 (Centrafarm / Winthrop)

THE EXERCISE, BY THE OWNER OF A TRADE MARK, OF THE RIGHT WHICH HE ENJOYS UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF A MEMBER STATE TO PROHIBIT THE SALE, IN THAT STATE, OF A PRODUCT WHICH HAS BEEN MARKETED UNDER THE TRADE MARK IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE BY THE TRADE MARK OWNER OR WITH HIS CONSENT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE RULES OF THE EEC TREATY CONCERNING THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS WITHIN THE COMMON MARKET .

IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS A MATTER OF NO SIGNIFICANCE THAT THERE EXIST, AS BETWEEN THE EXPORTING AND IMPORTING MEMBER STATES, PRICE DIFFERENCES RESULTING FROM GOVERNMENTAL MEASURES ADOPTED IN THE EXPORTING STATE WITH A VIEW TO CONTROLLING THE PRICE OF THE PRODUCT .

THE OWNER OF A TRADE MARK RELATING TO A PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT CANNOT AVOID THE INCIDENCE OF COMMUNITY RULES CONCERNING THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTROLLING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE PRODUCT WITH A VIEW TO PROTECTING THE PUBLIC AGAINST DEFECTS THEREIN .

Judgment of 31 Oct 1974, C-15/74 (Centrafarm)

THE EXERCISE, BY THE PATENTEE, OF THE RIGHT WHICH HE ENJOYS UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF A MEMBER STATE TO PROHIBIT THE SALE, IN THAT STATE, OF A PRODUCT PROTECTED BY THE PATENT WHICH HAS BEEN MARKETED IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE BY THE PATENTEE OR WITH HIS CONSENT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE RULES OF THE EEC TREATY CONCERNING THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS WITHIN THE COMMON MARKET .

IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS OF NO SIGNIFICANCE TO KNOW WHETHER THE PATENTEE AND THE UNDERTAKINGS TO WHICH THE LATTER HAS GRANTED LICENCES DO OR DO NOT BELONG TO THE SAME CONCERN .

IT IS ALSO A MATTER OF NO SIGNIFICANCE THAT THERE EXIST, AS BETWEEN THE EXPORTING AND IMPORTING MEMBER STATES, PRICE DIFFERENCES RESULTING FROM GOVERNMENTAL MEASURES ADOPTED IN THE EXPORTING STATE WITH A VIEW TO CONTROLLING THE PRICE OF THE PRODUCT .

THE PROPRIETOR OF A PATENT RELATING TO A PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT CANNOT AVOID THE INCIDENCE OF COMMUNITY RULES CONCERNING THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTROLLING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE PRODUCT WITH A VIEW TO PROTECTING THE PUBLIC AGAINST DEFECTS THEREIN .

ARTICLE 42 OF THE ACT CONCERNING THE CONDITIONS OF ACCESSION AND THE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE TREATIES CANNOT BE INVOKED TO PREVENT IMPORTATION INTO THE NETHERLANDS, EVEN BEFORE 1 JANUARY 1975, OF GOODS PUT ONTO THE MARKET IN THE UNITED KINGDOM BY THE PATENTEE OR WITH HIS CONSENT .

Judgment of 3 Jul 1974, C-192/73 (Van Zuylen)

TO PROHIBIT THE MARKETING IN ONE MEMBER STATE OF A PRODUCT LEGALLY BEARING A TRADE MARK IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT AN IDENTICAL TRADE MARK, HAVING THE SAME ORIGIN, EXISTS IN THE FIRST STATE, IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PROVISIONS FOR THE FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS WITHIN THE COMMON MARKET.

IF THE HOLDER OF A TRADE MARK IN A MEMBER STATE MAY HIMSELF MARKET THE PRODUCT BEARING THAT TRADE MARK IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE, THEN THE SAME APPLIES TO A THIRD PARTY WHO HAS DULY ACQUIRED THIS PRODUCT IN THE FIRST-NAMED STATE .

Disclaimer