The Court's rulings are summarised here; please click on the links to read the full judgments.

Case C-147/20: Novartis Pharma GmbH v Abacus Medicine A/S

This case concerns Novartis, which owns the trade marks Novartis and Votrient in Germany, and Abacus, which markets medicinal products in Germany under the Votrient mark imported from other EU Member States.

The Court said the EUTM Regulation must be interpreted "as meaning that the proprietor of an EU trade mark is not entitled to oppose the marketing by a parallel importer of a repackaged medicinal product in a new outer packaging bearing that mark, where the replacement of the anti-tampering device of the original outer packaging of that medicinal product carried out in accordance with Article 47a(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012, would leave visible traces of opening on that packaging and where those traces would cause such strong resistance on the part of a significant proportion of consumers on the market of the Member State of importation or on a substantial part of that market to medicinal products repackaged in that way that it would constitute an obstacle to effective access to that market, which must be established on a case-by-case basis." In addition, Article 5(3) of Regulation 2016/161 must be interpreted "as not precluding the barcode containing the unique identifier referred to in Article 3(2)(a) of that delegated regulation from being affixed to the outer packaging of the medicinal product by means of an adhesive label, provided that that label cannot be removed without being damaged and that, in particular, the barcode remains perfectly readable throughout the supply chain and throughout the entire period referred to in Article 6 of that delegated regulation."

Case C-204/20: Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH v kohlpharma GmbH

In this case, Bayer (proprietor of the trade mark Androcur) brought proceedings against kohlpharma concerning medicinal products imported from the Netherlands.

The Court said the Trade Mark Directive "must be interpreted as meaning that the trade mark proprietor is entitled to oppose the marketing, by a parallel importer, of a medicinal product repackaged in new outer packaging to which that trade mark is affixed where it is objectively possible to relabel the medicinal product concerned in compliance with the requirements provided for in Article 47a of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2012/26, and where the medicinal product thus relabelled could actually access the market of the Member State of importation" and "must be interpreted as meaning that the trade mark proprietor is entitled to oppose the marketing, by a parallel importer, of a medicinal product repackaged in new outer packaging to which that trade mark is affixed, where the visible traces of opening of the original outer packaging which, where applicable, would result from relabelling of that medicinal product would be clearly attributable to the repackaging thus carried out by that parallel importer, unless those traces give rise, on the market of the Member State of importation or on a significant part of that market, to such strong resistance on the part of a significant proportion of consumers to medicinal products repackaged in that way as to constitute a barrier to effective access to that market, which must be established on a case-by-case basis."

Case C-224/20: Merck Sharp & Dohme BV et al v Abacus Medicine A/S et al

This ruling arises from seven sets of proceedings between manufacturers of medicinal products and parallel importers concerning the importation into Denmark of medicinal products placed on the market in other EU Member States by the manufacturers.

The Court made a number of rulings concerning the interpretation of the EUTM Regulation and Trade Marks Directive, including that they must be interpreted "as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark is entitled to oppose the marketing, by a parallel importer, of a medicinal product repackaged in new outer packaging to which that trade mark is affixed where the replacement of the anti-tampering device of the original outer packaging, carried out in accordance with Article 47a(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012, would leave visible or tangible traces of that original outer packaging having been opened, provided that:

there is no doubt that those traces of opening are attributable to the repackaging of that medicinal product by that parallel importer and

those traces do not cause, on the market of the Member State of importation or on a substantial part of it, such strong resistance from a significant proportion of consumers to the medicinal products repackaged in that way that it would constitute a barrier to effective access to that market."

Joined Cases C-233/20 and C-254/20: Impexeco NV v Novartis AG and PI Pharma NV Novartis AG/Novartis Pharma NV

These two sets of proceedings concern the marketing in Belgium of generic medicinal products imported from the Netherlands and repackaged in new outer packaging on which the mark for the generic medicinal product of which Novartis is the proprietor was replaced by the mark for the reference medicinal product of which it is also the proprietor.

The Court said the relevant legislation "must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of the trade mark of a reference medicinal product and the trade mark of a generic medicinal product may oppose the placing on the market of a Member State, by a parallel importer, of that generic medicinal product imported from another Member State, where that medicinal product has been repackaged in new outer packaging to which the trade mark of the corresponding reference medicinal product has been affixed, unless, first, the two medicinal products are identical in all respects and, second, the replacement of the trade mark satisfies the conditions laid down in paragraph 79 of the judgment of 11 July 1996, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Others (C‑427/93, C‑429/93 and C‑436/93, EU:C:1996:282); in paragraph 32 of the judgment of 26 April 2007, Boehringer Ingelheim and Others (C‑348/04, EU:C:2007:249); and in paragraph 28 of the judgment of 17 May 2018, Junek Europ-Vertrieb (C‑642/16, EU:C:2018:322)."

Case C-175/21: Harman International Industries Inc. v AB S.A.

This case concerns Harman audiovisual products that AB distributes on the Polish market, which are purchased from a supplier other than that authorised by Harman.

The Court said the relevant legislation "must be interpreted as not precluding a judicial practice by which the operative part of the decision upholding an action for infringement of an EU trade mark is drafted in terms which, owing to their general nature, leaves it to the authority with competence to enforce that decision to determine the products to which that decision applies, provided that, in the context of the enforcement procedure, the defendant is permitted to contest the determination of the products covered by that procedure and that a court may examine and decide, in compliance with the provisions of Directive 2004/48, which products have in fact been placed on the market in the EEA by the proprietor or with its consent."

Unsubscribe:
You can unsubscribe from this emailing list or change the frequency and type of information you receive from MARQUES at anytime by logging into the MARQUES website and clicking on the Preferences tab in the My Profile section of the My Account page.  Alternatively you can reply to this email with the subject 'NewsChannel - Unsubscribe' to be removed from this mailing list.