Under the Venezuelan law (i.e. Decision 344 of the Andean Pact), international exhaustion exists in relation to (i) and (ii).

(iii). With respect to other Industrial Property rights, according to Decision 345 of Andean Pact international exhaustion also exists in the case of plant breeders' rights.

Under Venezuelan law, a contractual restriction could not limit the effects of international exhaustion, and any contractual restriction in this respect is considered null; this applies to (i), (ii) and (iii). In addition to the Industrial Property Regulations the Antitrust Law, expressly prohibits the inclusion of clauses that restrict trade.

. It does not apply, hence under Venezuelan law contractual restrictions are considered null. Although a contract may contain the restriction, the owner of Industrial Property rights could not avoid its rights against the purchaser, because exhaustion will occur.

a)b)c). Does not apply for the reasons stated in 2.a).

(i)(ii)(iii) Not applicable.

The "consent" that gives rise to exhaustion is a general rule that applies in all cases. It is sufficient that consent is given by the owner of an Industrial Property right to produce the effects of exhaustion.

Yes, according to our legislation an IPR owner may object to parallel imports when the goods or the packaging has been modified. This applies to (i), (ii) and (iii) for Plants Breeders' restrictions (Art. 27 a) and b) of Decision 351).

We believe that in the case of developing countries distributors should be protected from gray goods and that parallel imports should be prohibited.

For medium sized local distributors who have committed to a brand, have inverted in stocks, have spent heavily on promotion and training, and perhaps maintain goods and services it is extremely disruptive and counterproductive to allow parallel imports. The sole benefit of lower prices should not justify the destruction of successful distribution companies.