Log in

CLASS 46


Now in its twelfth year, Class 46 is dedicated to European trade mark law and practice. This weblog is written by a team of enthusiasts who want to spread the word and share their thoughts with others.

Want to receive Class 46 by email?
Click here subscribe for free.

Who we all are...
Anthonia Ghalamkarizadeh
Birgit Clark
Blog Administrator
Christian Tenkhoff
Fidel Porcuna
Gino Van Roeyen
Markku Tuominen
Niamh Hall
Nikos Prentoulis
Stefan Schröter
Tomasz Rychlicki
Yvonne Onomor
FRIDAY, 2 DECEMBER 2011
Philips, Nokia ruling: a headache for brand owners
The Court of Justice of the European Union handed down its ruling yesterday morning in two Joined Cases, C-446/09 and C-495/09, Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Lucheng Meijing Industrial Company Ltd and others and Nokia Corporation v Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Revenue and Customs, INTA intervening. The references concerned the extent to which counterfeit or infringing goods which are in transit through the territory of the European Union but are not actually on sale there can be detained by the Customs authorities. 

To the great consternation of brand owners, and indeed all proprietors of IP rights in goods, the Court of Justice has interpreted the relevant legal provisions -- currently Council Regulation 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 --in a manner which may make perfect sense to economists but which does no favours to trade mark owners or consumers, ruling that goods are not counterfeit unless they are on sale, or intended for sale, in the EU.  The actual wording of the ruling is as follows:

The Council Regulations concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain IP rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights must be interpreted as meaning that: 

– goods coming from a non-member State which are imitations of goods protected in the European Union by a trade mark right or copies of goods protected in the European Union by copyright, a related right or a design cannot be classified as ‘counterfeit goods’ or ‘pirated goods’ within the meaning of those regulations merely on the basis of the fact that they are brought into the customs territory of the European Union under a suspensive procedure; 

– those goods may, on the other hand, infringe the right in question and therefore be classified as ‘counterfeit goods’ or ‘pirated goods’ where it is proven that they are intended to be put on sale in the European Union, such proof being provided, inter alia, where it turns that the goods have been sold to a customer in the European Union or offered for sale or advertised to consumers in the European Union, or where it is apparent from documents or correspondence concerning the goods that their diversion to European Union consumers is envisaged; 

– in order that the authority competent to take a substantive decision may profitably examine whether such proof and the other elements constituting an infringement of the intellectual property right relied upon exist, the customs authority to which an application for action is made must, as soon as there are indications before it giving grounds for suspecting that such an infringement exists, suspend the release of or detain those goods; and 

– those indications may include, inter alia, the fact that the destination of the goods is not declared whereas the suspensive procedure requested requires such a declaration, the lack of precise or reliable information as to the identity or address of the manufacturer or consignor of the goods, a lack of cooperation with the customs authorities or the discovery of documents or correspondence concerning the goods in question suggesting that there is liable to be a diversion of those goods to European Union consumers. 

While it still remains for national customs authorities and courts determine the circumstances in which grounds for suspecting infringement will be said to exist, they are bound by the Court of Justice formulation and this will continue to make it difficult for them to intercept and deal with fakes in transit.

Posted by: Blog Administrator @ 10.56
Tags: suspensive detention, ECJ ruling,
Sharing on Social Media? Use the link below...
Perm-A-Link: https://www.marques.org/blogs/class46?XID=BHA2662
Reader Comments: 0
Post a Comment


MARQUES does not guarantee the accuracy of the information in this blog. The views are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of MARQUES. Seek professional advice before action on any information included here.


The Class 46 Archive






 

 

 

 

 

 


CONTACT

info@marques.org
+44 (0)116 2747355
POST ADDRESS

9 Cartwright Court, Cartwright Way
Bardon, Leicestershire
LE67 1UE

EMAIL

Ingrid de Groot
Internal Relations Officer
ingrid.de.groot@marques.org
Alessandra Romeo
External Relations Officer
aromeo@marques.org
James Nurton
Newsletter Editor
editor@marques.org
Robert Harrison
Webmaster
robertharrison@marques.org
BLOGS

Signup for our blogs.
Headlines delivered to your inbox