The question of international exhaustion of Industrial Property Rights (IPRs) has not been regulated by TRIPS, and therefore each country is free in principle, to adopt the policy that it considers more convenient.

As regards IPRs per se, the Argentine Group is of the opinion that when the owner of the same IPR in several countries, the general principle should be to accept international exhaustion of IPRs. Thus, the IPR owner's right is protected, and the purchaser is free to use the product of his purchase for its normal intended purpose, that frequently will be the resale when it is a bulk purchase.

The Group believes that national borders should in principle not affect the free transport of goods if the owner of the IPRs is the same person or group in all the jurisdictions involve.

The Group also believes that contractual restrictions may well be imposed, but such restrictions would be subject to the law of contracts.

There are, of course, other aspects concerning political and economic aspects, that may incline the different countries or regions to establish restrictions to import goods protected by IPRs, but that is not the natural consequences of the existence of an IPR, but rather a political policy that the country or region in question considers advisable, especially if other commities impose restrictions in this field

We shall now answer the specific questions:

1.

Is there international exhaustion of (i) patents; (ii) trade marks; and (iii) other industrial property rights? That is, can an industrial property right owner use industrial property rights against parallel imports from another country, when the imported products have been put on the market in that country by the industrial property right owner or with his consent?

Our patent law provides in its article 36-subsection c, that a patent cannot prevent any person from importing a patented product, or a product produced by a patented process, if it has been acquired legitimately.

Although there is no similar provision in our trademark law, the few court decisions on the subject have decided that international exhaustion exists.

2.(a)

Can contractual restrictions imposed by an industrial property right owner be used to limit the effect of international exhaustion? (b) What is the effect of breach of contractual restriction by a purchaser - does exhaustion occur?

Contractual restrictions may be imposed, but in principle they would be governed by the law of contracts. However, it could be argued that a purchase made abroad with the intent to import the product in Argentina would violate TRIPS if it is not authorized by the IPR owner.

3.(a)

If contractual restrictions can be used to limit importation, does it matter whether they are express or implied?

As restrictions are an exception to the normal consequences of a sale, they should be express.

(b)

If contractual limitations are express, are there any particular marking requirements?

There is no law that requires particular marking requirements, but they are surely advisable to protect the IPR owner.

(c)

If protected products are marked to indicate some marketing restriction, what are the consequences of removal or loss of any marking?

The only consequence of removal or loss of any marking would permit any subsequent purchaser to argue that he ignored the existence of any restrictions.

4.

Does international exhaustion of industrial property rights apply where a product has been put on the market under a compulsory licence (if applicable)?

We do not have specific provisions or case law concerning compulsory licensing, but we believe the patentee could argue with some reasonability that the effects of a compulsory license is limited to the country where the license has been granted by the local authorities, but does not extend beyond the frontiers of said country.

5.

Is "consent" which gives rise to exhaustion limited to specific arrangements, (for example a relationship with a subsidiary or affiliated company, or an agreement with a licensee), or a question of fact in each case?

We believe that specific arrangements such as subsidiary or affiliated companies would justify the exhaustion of rights, other less frequent situations of a similar nature could have the same effects.

6.

Can an IPR owner object to parallel importation where (a) goods or (b) their packaging have been modified?

Certainly an IPR owner could prevent a sale when the goods or their packaging has been modified even within Argentina, and our Group believes that this should also apply to any parallel importation.

7.

As well as stating the laws in their respective countries, the groups are also invited to (a) make any proposals for changes; and (b) offer any observations of interest on the topics raised above.

The Group believes that international exhaustion of rights, as a general principle, is adequate to protect both the IPR holder and his clients.

It is also clear to the Group that certain countries or regions may allege economic or political reasons to prevent parallel imports, but that as a general principle this would imply curbing the free flow of international trade, which in principle we consider positive.

Summary

The question of international exhaustion of Industrial Property Rights (IPRs) has not been regulated by TRIPS, and therefore each country is free in principle, to adopt the policy that it considers more convenient.

As regards IPRs per se, the Argentine Group is of the opinion that when the owner of the same IPR in several countries, the general principle should be to accept international exhaustion of IPRs.

The Group also believes that contractual restrictions may well be imposed, but such restrictions would be subject to the law of contracts.

Other aspects concerning political and economic aspects, may incline the different countries or regions to establish restrictions to import goods, protected by IPRs, but that is not the natural consequences of the existence of an IPR, but rather a political policy that the country or region in question considers advisable.

Résumé

La question de l'épuisement international des droits de propriété intellectuelle n'a pas été reglementée par l'ADPIC, et par conséquent chaque pays est en principe libre d'adopter la politique qu'il considère la mieux adaptée dans ce domaine.

En ce qui concerne les droit de propriété intellectuelle en soi, le Groupe Argentin considère que dans le cas d'un titulaire unique d'un même droit de propriété intellectuelle dans différents pays, la règle générale doit être l'acceptation de l'épuisement international des droits de propriété intellectuelle.

Le Groupe considère également que des restrictions contractuelles peuvent etre imposées mais que ces restrictions devront être soumises à la loi des contrats.

D'autres considérations de caractère politique et économique peuvent pousser les différents pays ou régions à établir des restrictions sur l'importation de biens protégés par un droit de propriété intellectuelle, mais cela n'est pas lié à l'existence d'un droit de propriété intellectuelle sinon simplement à des considérations de nature politique que le pays ou la région en question considère appropriées.

Zusammenfassung

Die Frage der internationalen Erschöpfung des gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes ist nicht im TRIPS reglamentiert worden, daher steht es im Prinzip jedem Land frei eine Politik anzunehmen die es für sich am günstigsten erachtet.

Was den gewerblichen Rechtsschutz an sich betrifft, ist die Argentinische Gruppe der Meinung, dass, wenn ein Eigentümer dengleichen gewerblichen Rechtsschutz in mehreren Lándern besitzt, die internationalen Erschöpfung des gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes anerkannt werden sollte.

Die Gruppe glaubt auch, dass vertragliche Einschränkungen sehr wohl auferlegt werden können, aber das solche Einschränkungen unter das Vertragsrecht fallen würden.

Andere Aspekte politischer und wirtschaftlicher Art können die verschiedenen Länder oder Regionen dazu bewegen Beschränkungen für die Wareneinfuhr unter dem gewerblichen Rechtsschutz einzurichten, aber dies gehört nicht zu den natürlichen Konsequenzen der Existenz des gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes, sondern dabei handelt es sich um politische Massnahmen die ein betroffenes Land oder Region als empfehlenswert erachtet.