1.

Is there international exhaustion of (i) patents; (ii) trademarks; 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? .

Patents: No, there is EEA wide exhaustion.

The Dutch Patent Act states in article 53, paragraph 4 that a patentee cannot invoke its patent concerning actions involving that product, in case it is rightfully, e.g. with consent of the patentee, put on the market in the Netherlands or in the countries of the European Economic Area (EEA). The former national exhaustion clause in the Dutch Patent Act has been extended under the influence of articles 28-30 (free flow of goods) of the EC-Treaty, and ECJ case law (ECJ 1147, 1166 (1974): Centrafarm / Sterling Drug).

Trademarks: No, there is EEA wide exhaustion

Both article 7 of the Trademark Directive and article 13A clause 8 of the Benelux Trademark Act state that the trademark shall not entitle the proprietor thereof to prohibit its use in relation to goods which have been put on the market under that trademark by the proprietor or with his consent.

In its judgement of July 16th 1998 (C-355/96, Silouette / Hartlauer), the ECJ ruled that national rules providing for international exhaustion of trademark rights in respect of products put on the market outside the EEA by the proprietor or with his consent, are contrary to article 7 of the Directive. In other words, the ECJ made it clear that article 7 of the Directive speaks of EEA wide exhaustion. The ECJ confirmed this in its decision of July 1st, 1999 (C-173/98 Sebago / GB-Unic), in which it stated:

"Article 7 (1) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, must be interpreted as meaning that:

• the rights conferred by the trade mark are exhausted only if the products have been put on the market in the Community (in the European Economic Area since the Agreement on the Economic Area entered into force) and that provision does not leave open to the Member States to provide in their domestic law for exhaustion of the rights conferred by the trade mark in respect of products put on the market in non-member countries;
• for there to be consent within the meaning of Article 7(1) of that directive, such consent must relate to each individual item of the product in respect of which exhaustion is pleaded."

(iii)

Copyright:

With respect to Copyright no specific clause exists in the Dutch Copyright Act that limits the rule of exhaustion to national and/or EEA territory. In the case law in the Netherlands international, i.e. worldwide exhaustion is accepted. However, such international exhaustion can be prevented by splitting the copyright ownership (e.g. transferring the copyright to the distributor in a certain country).

It is to be expected that the courts will apply EEA exhaustion as far as this is necessary in order to apply the Copyright Act in accordance with EC Directives (compare f.i. art. 4 of the Directive on the legal protection of computer programs).

However, within the EEA, EEA wide exhaustion prevails when the copyright owner of the product has lawfully distributed a copyright protected product on the market in another Member State, or when this has happened with his consent (ECJ January 20th, 1981, joint cases 55 and 57/80, Membran / Gema and K-Tel / Gema).

It is important to establish that exhaustion of rights to sale and/or to distribute a product (that is: the corporal object) does not mean that the right to other forms of exploitation of the copyright protected work are also exhausted. Forms which are of a different nature than the (re)sale or distribution of the copyright protected work could limit or create an exception on the fundamental principle of free movement of goods and thus on the doctrine of EEA wide exhaustion. The right of public performance, the right to broadcast and the right to rent are examples of such different forms of exploitation that are not exhausted even though a copyright protected product is rightfully put on the EEA-market by its owner.

These exceptions are based on the provisions set forth in article 30 of the EC Treaty. This states that the provisions of free movement of goods and services do not preclude (national) prohibitions or restrictions on imports and exports which are justified on grounds of the protection of industrial and commercial property, unless these prohibitions or restrictions constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between nationals of Member States.

In the case of Warner Brothers & Metronome Video / Cristiansen (ECJ May 17th 1988, case 158/86) the ECJ pointed out that the Danish (national) law - which provides a specific protection of the right to hire out video-cassettes - was clearly justified on grounds of the protection of industrial and commercial property pursuant to article 36 (article 30 new) of the EC Treaty. Therefore it did not infringe upon the fundamental principal of free movement of goods (see also ECJ April 28th, 1998, C-200/96 Metronome/Music Point Hokamp).

In article 1 of the 'Directive on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property' clause 4 explicitly states that the exercise of the right of sale or distribution, in any form, of the protected works, does not entail exhaustion of the rights of rental or lending. The Directive thus makes the rental right entirely autonomous, as a form of exploitation distinct from distribution of the original or copies of the protected work.

(iv)

Other intellectual property rights:

The same rule of EEA wide exhaustion applies for:

• Neighbouring rights: see article 2 clause 2 of the Neighbouring rights Act. Please note that article 2 clause 2 of the Neighbouring rights Act does exclude from this principle of community-wide exhaustion the rental and lending right;
• Databases: see article 2 clause 3 of the Data Base Act;
• Topographies of semiconductor products: see article 5 Directive on the legal protection of topographies of semiconductor products;
• Plant variety rights;
• Design rights: although the Benelux Design Act only mentions in article 14 clause 6 a Benelux-wide exhaustion, under the influence of ECJ case law, EEA wide exhaustion has also prevailed in the field of Designs.

2A

Can contractual restrictions imposed by an industrial property right owner be used to limit the effect of international exhaustion?

No.

Any contractual restriction imposed by an industrial property right owner to limit the effect of International or Community-wide exhaustion only binds the contracting parties. Such restrictions do not have any binding effect on third parties or the principle of free movement of goods and services laid down in articles 28 - 30 of the EC Treaty. So, in case a product, which is protected by any industrial property right, is put on the market by or with consent of the owner of the industrial property right the owner cannot invoke its right even if the contracting party has committed itself not to export these products. If nevertheless this does occur the contracting party can become liable for compensation of damages caused by its breach of contract.

It should be noted that contractual restrictions may be contrary to art. 81 EC Treaty or art. 6 Dutch Competition Act.

2B

What is the effect of breach of contractual restriction by a purchaser - does exhaustion occur?

Answer: Yes, see above.

It should be pointed out that, if a(n explicit and clear) contractual restriction has been imposed by the intellectual property owner with respect to goods which are put on the market outside the EEA forbidding the putting on the market of such goods within the EEA, there can in principle be no discussion whether or not there has been an "implied consent" for putting such products on the EEA market. With respect to such goods it is clear that there is no consent and thus no exhaustion.

3A

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

To be clarified by the ECJ. As pointed out under Question 2b importation to the EEA can be prevented if no consent has been given to put such product on the EEA market. The Court of Justice re Davidoff (C414/99) and Levi Strauss will have to decide if such consent can also be given implicitly. The Dutch group agrees with the Benelux Court in a decision of December 6, 1999 re Kipling vs. GB Unic where the court stated the following:

"12.

Considering that from the terms and import of said provision, interpreted on the basis of the underlying article 7 of the First Directive 89/104/EC of the Council of December 21, 1998 regarding the amendment of trademark law of the member states (the directive), it can be concluded that goods which have been put on the market under the trademark by the holder of the trademark within the meaning of this provision of the BMW have only been "put on the market in the Community", when the trademark holder actually made the goods bearing the mark available to a customer with the intention of giving this customer the opportunity to resell these goods within the Community."

With respect to the second, third and fourth question jointly

"13.

Considering that the purpose of the second, third and fourth question is to learn how the words "or with its consent" of the above provision should be interpreted.

14.

Considering that article 13A, paragraph 8 links the exhaustion of the trademark right with the completion of the act of "putting on the market in the Community", of which the Court gave an explanation in item 12 above, and further puts such act performed by the holder of the trademark itself on a par with the event that this act is performed by another party, but with the consent of the holder of the trademark;

15.

Considering that from the terms and import of this provision it can be concluded that the consent of the holder of the trademark will have to be focused on the fact that this other party will actually make these goods bearing the trademark available to a customer with the intention of giving the latter the opportunity to resell these goods within the Community;

16.

that such implies that the holder of the trademark should know and approve such making available and that such approval shall relate to each sample of the products in respect of which the exhaustion is invoked;

17.

Considering that, from the foregoing, it follows that the mere fact that the goods bearing the trademark in respect of which the exhaustion is invoked have been designed within and/or invoiced or exported from the Community, it cannot be concluded that the holder of the trademark knows and approves that a third party actually makes these goods available to a customer with the intention of giving the latter the opportunity to resell these within the Community."

In this case the Court further confirmed that in principle the party who invokes "exhaustion" has to prove that the products have been put on the EEA market with the consent of the right owner.

3B

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

No.

However, it is advisable to use different marking and/or packaging for products meant for sale inside the EEA in comparison with products meant for sale outside the EEA. This would clearly make it easier to separate both products from eachother and thus lighten the burden of proof for the owner of the IPR protected product when confronted in the EEA with a product which is not meant for sale inside the EEA.

3C

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

1)

Removal without involving re-affixing the trademark

The question whether or not the removal of markings is unlawful depends on the purpose for which such markings have been applied to the product (Supreme Court 5-11-1995 re Loendersloot/Ballentine's). If such markings have been put on products in order to make it clear to the trade that there is no consent for the sale of such products within the EEA, it remains to be decided if such removal is unlawful but it is likely that it is. This will be different in a case where such markings are solely used to prevent parallel imports within the EEA. The removal of such markings is not unlawful.

Under certain circumstances the removal of a marking may be considered a trademark infringement if it could be established that the trademark owner has legitimate reasons to object against the further sale of the product without such markings (art. 13A under 8 Benelux Trademark Act).

2)

Removal involving re-affixing the trademark

If the marking can only be removed by also removing the trademark and the trademark is thereafter again affixed ("relabelling") then this would be a trademark infringement unless (see ECJ 11 November 1997 (C 349/95 Loendersloot/Ballantine's):

• " 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 market 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 trademark owner of the relabelling before the relabelled products are put on sale."

4

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

No.

Exhaustion only occurs when the IPR protected product is put on the EEA-market by the IPR owner or with his consent.

In the field of patent law the ECJ explicitly ruled that the rule of exhaustion does not apply in case a patented product has been put on the market under a compulsory licence (ECJ July 9th, 1985, Pharmon / Hoechst). The ECJ stated that in case a Member State, by means of a compulsory licence allows third parties to fabricate and/or distribute (sell) a patented product without consent of the patent owner, the patent owner is denied its exclusive right to forbid or allow third parties to fabricate and/or distribute (sell) the patented product. Furthermore the patent owner is also denied the right to decide under which conditions this (e.g. the fabrication and/or distribution) should take place. Since the, for the applicability of the rule of exhaustion necessary element of consent is missing in case a product is marketed under a compulsory licence, the rule of exhaustion does not apply in these circumstances.

The question in which case there is consent, has been answered by the ECJ in its decision of September 14th, 1982 (Keurkoop / Nancy Keen). In this case the ECJ ruled in the field of Designs that the owner of a (design right) protected design can invoke its design right against the import of a similar design from another EEA country, if it is established that this design is not put in the EEA-market by the owner of the IP right or with his consent, by a subsidiary or affiliated company or by a third party which has an economic or legal binding/relationship with the owner as well as that is established that no agreement is made between that third party and the owner of the IP right to limit the competition between both parties.

In other words, if the owner of an IP right does not have any 'involvement' with the introduction of the IP protected goods in the market, the rules of exhaustion or free flow of goods do not apply, and the owner can invoke its IP right to forbid further re-selling of the product.

Since the owner of the IPR protected product does not have any involvement in case a product has been put on the market under a compulsory licence it is justified to conclude for all IP areas that in these cases the rules of exhaustion do not apply even though no specific case law or legislation - as is the case with patent law - exists.

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?

See hereabove under 3A. The Court of Justice re Davidoff/Levi Strauss will have to give a further interpretation of "consent" but it is clear that this will not be limited to the examples quoted in the question.

6

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

Trademark law

In general the trademark owner can object on the basis of his trademark against the further sale of his goods where there exist legitimate reasons for the owner to oppose further commercialisation of the goods especially where the condition of the goods is changed or impaired after they have been put on the market.

With respect to the modification of the packaging there are circumstances in which modification - under strict conditions - is allowed. See for this conditions for instance re Loendersloot/Ballentine (hereabove under 3c). Such is the case when in the Member state of import certain circumstances make it objectively necessary to replace the original trade mark or alter or modify the packaging to make the IPR protected product suitable for (re)sale in that state by the importer.

Modification of the product itself is not allowed, that is to say that the modification may not affect in any way the original condition of the product (see ECJ October 12th, 1999, C-379/97 Pharmacia / Paranova and ECJ November 11th, 1997, C-349/95 Loendersloot / Ballantine).

Copyright law

With respect to copyright protected products, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled in the case Hovener / Poortvliet that the copyright of the proprietor of a copyright protected work is not exhausted, even though this work has been distributed in the EEA by or with consent of the proprietor, if it concerns a new form of exploitation of the copyright protected product, for which the proprietor has not (yet) given his consent (Supreme Court 19 January 1979, Hovener / Poortvliet). In this case Poortvliet had given permission to publish and distribute several of his paintings in the form of a calendar. However, Hovener had framed each 'painting' for the purpose of selling them individually. Since this was a new form of exploitation Poortvliet successfully stopped further distribution and sale of the framed paintings by invoking his copyright.

The copyright holder can under certain circumstances object against the sale of altered products on the basis of his moral rights.

Patents - Designs

The rightholder can only object in the (exceptional) case that the changes are so fundamental that the product has to be considered to be made anew.

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 Dutch group observes that (at least from a legal point of view) the starting point for a discussion about the pro's and con's of international exhaustion has to be the fact that IPR's are rights which are territorial: they are only valid for a certain defined territory. If the IPR holder puts a product on the market outside such territory he has not made any use of his IPR and it is difficult to see how one can argue that in that case his right has been "consumed" or "exhausted". Justification for such argument could be found in the essence (raison d'être) of the IPR and/or economical considerations. Before the changes (EEA exhaustion) brought about by the EU, Dutch law accepted international exhaustion for trademark rights and national exhaustion for patent rights. It was argued that international exhaustion for trademark rights was warranted because the function of the trademark was a guarantee of origin for the public which function was fulfilled if the product was orginating from the trademark owner. There was therefore no justification for national exhaustion. A small minority of the Dutch group is of the opinion that this agreement still prevails today.

With respect to patents it was not disputed that national exhaustion was appropriate in order to warrant the exclusive right granted as reward for making the invention public. The Dutch group therefore wants to emphasize that each discussion about national or international exhaustion should also take in consideration the essence (raison d'être) of the different IPR's. In this respect the Dutch group observes that a trademark in modern times is not anymore exclusively an indicator of origin but has often become (as a result of considerable investments of the trademark owner) a very valuable symbol of goodwill.

The Dutch group agrees with the present system of regional exhaustion in the EEA as in effect the EEA can be considered as one market without internal frontiers where goods, services, persons and capital (like in one country) move freely and where economic standards are comparable. In this respect it should be noted that the member states have committed themselves to create such common market. So even if such market has not yet been fully achieved this is a sufficient justification for EEA wide exhaustion.

The Dutch group is of the opinion that in view of the important differences in economics, legal systems, wealth, development, state price control and regulations throughout the world international exhaustion of IPR's is not desirable and may be even counterproductive as it may lead to lower investments in R&D and also may lead to IPR holders being hesitant to sell their products in low price countries and/or transfer their technology to such countries. The Dutch group is further of the opinion that as to international exhaustion of trademark rights is concerned (a subject of debate in the EU) the advantages and disadvantages have to be carefully weighed. In this respect the Dutch group refers to the outcome of a study (the Nera study) and consultations with interested circles which lead the European Commission to the conclusion (expressed during the Internal Market Council on 25 May 2000) that at this stage no change to the current exhaustion regime should be made. As stated a small minority of the Dutch group advocates international (worldwide) exhaustion for trademarks. In the discussion about this question the Dutch group agreed that the question of national versus international exhaustion is more a trade policy question than a legal question.

Summary

Patents and trademarks cannot be invoked against patented or branded goods that, with the consent of the proprietor, have been put on the market within the European Economic Area ('EEA'). For copyright no specific clauses exist in the Dutch Copyright Act. Worldwide exhaustion is accepted for distribution and sale of Copyrighted work. Other forms of exploitation, like rent, the right to broadcast and the right of public performance are not covered by this rule. For other IP rights, design rights, neighbouring rights, databases, topographies of semiconductors, computer programs and plant variety rights, the rule of EEA-wide exhaustion applies.

Contractual restrictions cannot be used to limit the effect of EEA-wide exhaustion. For Copyright the same applies, but then worldwide. Please note that such restrictions may be contrary to competition rules. Exhaustion occurs even when there is breach of contract by the purchaser, except for those goods which have been put on the market outside the EEA.

For as far as contractual restrictions can be used to limit importation it is unclear whether they have to be express. This has to be clarified by the European Court of Justice ('ECJ') in Davidoff and Levi Strauss. There are no particular marking requirements in case of express contractual limitations. However, marking facilitates the distinction of both products. It will cause a lighter burden of proof when confronted with products that are not meant for resale in the EEA. Removal of markings without involving re-affixing of the trademark may be unlawful and may constitute trademark infringement. This will largely depend on the purpose for which markings have been applied. One will commit trademark infringement if the marking can only be removed by also removing the trademark and thereafter re-affixing the mark, unless this would cause artificial partitioning of the EEA market, the original condition of the product is not affected, the reputation of the mark is not affected and trademark proprietor has been informed of this^(1).

International exhaustion does not apply when the product has been put on the market under a compulsory licence. If the owner of an IP right has no involvement or whatsoever with the marketing of the IP protected goods, the rules of exhaustion or of free flow of goods do not apply and the owner can invoke his IP right to prevent resale of the product.

Whether consent giving rise to exhaustion is limited to specific arrangements or a question of fact in each case is yet to be decided by the ECJ.

The answer to the question whether an IPR owner can object to parallel importation when the goods or the packaging have been modified is different for the various IP rights.

Trademarks: if the proprietor has legitimate reasons, he can object to modification of the goods where their condition is changed or impaired. Modification of packaging is allowed under circumstances.⁽²⁾

Copyright: the right is not exhausted in case of a new form of exploitation.⁽³⁾

Patents: the right is not exhausted if the changes are so fundamental that the product has to be considered made new.

The Dutch group observes that the starting point of view for any discussion about exhaustion has to be the territorial character of IP rights. The present system of EEA wide exhaustion is not disputed. International exhaustion is not desirable and may be counterproductive for as long as markets remain as incomparable as they are now. A small minority of the Dutch group advocates international exhaustion for trademarks. The Dutch group is of the opinion that the discussion about exhaustion is a question of trade policy rather than a legal question.

Résumé

Les droits de brevets et marques ne peuvent être invoqués à l'encontre de produits protégés par des marques ou brevets lesquels, avec l'accord du titulaire, ont été mis sur le marché de l'Espace Economique Européen (EEE). En ce qui concerne les droits d'auteurs, il n'existe pas de clauses spécifiques dans le droit néerlandais en matière de droits d'auteurs. L'épuisement mondial est admis pour la distribution et la vente d'oeuvres protégées par droits d'auteurs. D'autres formes d'exploitation, telles que la location, le droit d'émettre et le droit de se produire en public ne sont pas couverts par cette règle. Quant aux autres droits de la propriété intellectuelle, les droits de modèle, les droits voisins, les droits sur les bases de données, les topographies de semi-conducteurs, les droits sur les logiciels et les droits de variétés végétales, la règle de l'épuisement dans tout l'EEE est d'application.

Les restrictions contractuelles ne peuvent servir à limiter l'effet de l'épuisement dans l'EEE. Cela s'applique aussi au droit d'auteurs, mais dans ce cas à l'échelle mondiale. Il est à noter que de telles restrictions peuvent être contraires aux règles de concurrence. L'épuisement s'applique même quand il y a violation du contrat de la part du vendeur, à l'exception des produits qui ont été mis sur le marché en dehors de l'EEE.

Dans la mesure où les restrictions contractuelles peuvent servir à limiter l'importation, la question de savoir si elles doivent être expresses n'est pas claire. Ceci doit être clarifié par la Cour Européenne de Justice (« CEJ ») dans l'affaire Davidoff/Levi Strauss. Il n'y a pas d'exigences particulières de marquage en cas de limitations contractuelles expresses. Cependant, le marquage facilite la distinction entre les deux produits. Cela causera une charge de preuve plus légère en cas de confrontation avec des produits qui ne sont pas destinés à être revendus dans l'EEE. Le retrait du marquage sans réapposition consécutive de la marque peut être illégal et peut constituer une violation des droits de marque. Ceci dépendra, dans une large mesure, de la raison pour laquelle les marquages ont été appliqués. Il y aura une violation des droits de marque si le marquage ne peut être enlevé qu'en enlevant aussi la marque et en l'apposant à nouveau, à moins que cela ne cause une séparation artificielle du marché de l'EEE, que l'état original du produit n'est pas affecté, que la réputation de la marque n'est pas affectée et que le titulaire de la marque en a été informé.⁽⁴⁾

L'épuisement international ne s'applique pas quand le produit a été mis sur le marché sous une licence obligatoire. Si le titulaire d'un droit intellectuel n'est pas impliqué, d'une façon ou d'une autre, avec le marquage des produits protégés par un droit intellectuel, les règles de l'épuisement ou de la libre circulation des marchandises ne s'appliquent pas et le titulaire peut invoquer son droit de propriété intellectuelle pour empêcher la revente du produit.

La question de savoir si le consentement donnant lieu à l'épuisement est limité à des arrangements spécifiques ou réglé au cas par cas, doit encore être décidée par la CEJ.

La réponse à la question de savoir si le titulaire d'un droit intellectuel peut s'opposer à l'importation parallèle quand les produits ou l'emballage ont été modifiés, est différente pour chaque droit de propriété intellectuelle.

Marques : si le titulaire invoque des raisons légitimes, il peut s'opposer à la modification des produits lorsque leur état est modifié ou altéré. La modification de l'emballage est permise dans certaines circonstances.⁽⁵⁾

Droit d'auteurs : le droit n'est pas épuisé en cas de nouvelle forme d'exploitation.⁽⁶⁾

Brevets : le droit n'est pas épuisé si les changements sont si fondamentaux que le produit doit être considéré comme étant nouveau.

Le groupe néerlandais observe que le point de vue de départ pour toute discussion sur l'épuisement doit être le caractère territorial des droits de la propriété intellectuelle. Le système actuel d'épuisement à l'EEE n'est pas en cause. L'épuisement international n'est pas souhaitable et risque d'être contre-productif tant que les marchés restent aussi incomparables qu'ils le sont aujourd'hui. Une petite minorité du groupe néerlandais préconise l'épuisement international pour les marques. Le groupe néerlandais considère que la discussion sur l'épuisement est une question de politique commerciale plutôt qu'une question juridique.

Zusammenfassung

Patente und Warenzeichen können nicht aufgerufen werden gegen patentierte oder markengeschützte Güter, die, mit Erlaubnis des Inhabers, innerhalb des Europäischen Wirtschaftbereichs ("EEA") auf den Markt gebracht sind. Für Urheberrecht gibt es in dem Niederländischen Urhebergesetz keine spezifischen Klauseln. Weltweit wird Erschöpfung akzeptiert für Verteilung und Verkauf von urhebergeschützten Werken. Andere Formen von Auswertung, wie Vermietung, das Recht auszusenden und das Recht der öffentlichen Darbietung werden durch diese Regel nicht gedeckt. Für andere IP-Rechte (IP = Geistiges Eigentum), Entwurfsrechte, angrenzende rechte, Dateien, Topographie von Halbleitern, Computerprogramme und Pflanzenartrechte, gilt die Regel der EEA-weiten Erschöpfung.

Vertragsmäßige Beschränkungen können nicht angewandt werden zur Beschränkung des Effektes der EEA-weiten Erschöpfung. Für Urheberrecht gilt dasselbe, aber in diesem Fall weltweit. Es sei aber bemerkt, dass solche Beschränkungen im Gegensatz zu Wettbewerbsregeln stehen. Erschöpfung tritt sogar auf, wenn es einen Vertragsbruch durch den Erwerber gibt, ausgenommen für diejenigen Güter, die außerhalb des EEA-Gebietes auf den Markt gebracht worden sind.

Insofern vertragsmäßige Beschränkungen zur Importbeschränkung angewandt werden können, ist es unklar, ob sie zum Ausdruck gebracht werden sollen. Dies soll durch das "European Court Of Justice" ("ECJ") (Europäischer Gerichtshof) in Davidoff und Levi Strauß geklärt werden. Es gibt keine speziellen Markierungsanforderungen im Falle deutlicher vertragsmäßiger Beschränkungen. Markierung erleichtert aber die Unterscheidung der beiden Produkte. Es wird eine geringere Prüflast verursachen bei der Konfrontation mit Produkten, die nicht für den Wiederverkauf in dem EEA gemeint sind. Das Entfernen von Markierungen ohne Hinzufügung des Warenzeichens kann gesetzwidrig sein und kann Warenzeichenverletzung bilden. Dies wird weitgehend abhängig sein von dem Zweck, für den Markierungen vorgesehen wurden. Man wird auf Warenzeichenverletzung verweisen, wenn die Markierung dadurch entfernt werden kann, dass auch das Warenzeichen entfernt wird und wenn danach die Markierung wieder angebracht wird, es sei denn, dass dies eine künstliche Aufteilung des EEA-Marktes herbeiführen würde, der ursprüngliche Zustand des Produktes nicht beeinträchtigt wird, der Ruf der Marke nicht beeinträchtigt wird und der Warenzeichen-Inhaber darüber informiert worden ist.

Internationale Erschöpfung gilt nicht, wenn das Produkt unter erzwungener Lizenz auf den Markt gebracht worden ist. Wenn der Inhaber eines IP-Rechts keine Verbundenheit o. dgl. mit Marketing der IP-geschützten Güter hat, gelten die Regeln der Erschöpfung oder des freien Güterstromes und der Inhaber kann sich auf sein IP-Recht berufen zur Vermeidung der Wiederverkauf des Produktes.

Ob Einstimmung Erschöpfung herbeiführen wird, beschränkt sich auf spezifische Arrangements oder eine Frage von Tatsachen in jedem Fall soll noch immer von dem ECJ entschieden werden.

Die Antwort auf die Frage, ob ein IPR-Inhaber eine parallele Einfuhr beanstanden kann, wenn die Güter oder die Verpackung verändert worden ist, ist für die jeweiligen IP-Rechte verschieden.

Warenzeichen: wenn der Inhaber triftige Gründe hat, kann er Änderung der Güter beanstanden, wenn ihr Zustand geändert oder beschädigt ist. Änderung der Verpakkung ist unter Umständen erlaubt.

Urheberrecht: das Recht ist nicht erschöpft im Falle einer neuen Form von Nutzung.

Patente: Das Recht ist nicht erschöpft, wenn die Änderungen so wesentlich sind, dass das Produkt als ein neues Produkt betrachtet werden soll.

Die Niederländische Gruppe hat bemerkt, dass der Ausgangsgesichtspunkt für jede Diskussion über Erschöpfung der territoriale Charakter von IP-Rechten sein soll. Das heutige System der EEA-weiten Erschöpfung wird nicht diskutiert. Internationale Erschöpfung ist nicht erwünscht und kann total anders sein, solange Märkte nach wie vor unvergleichbar sind. Eine kleine Minderheit der Niederländischen Gruppe befürwortet eine internationale Erschöpfung für Warenzeichen. Die Niederländische Gruppe ist der Meinung, dass die Diskussion über Erschöpfung vielmehr eine Frage von Handelspolitik als eine Rechtsfrage ist.

(1) ECJ 11 November 1997; C349/95 Loendersloot v Ballantine's.

(2) See foot note 1.

(3) HR 19 January 1979, Hovener v Poortvliet.

(4) CEJ 11 novembre 1997; C 349/95 l'affaire Loendersloot/Ballantine's.'

(5) voir note de bas de page 4.

(6) HR 19 janvier 1979, laffaire Hovener/Poortvliet.