Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T23:13:08.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parfums Christian Dior Sa v. Tuk Consultancy Bv, and Assco Gerüste GmbH v. Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co. KG. Joined Cases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2017

Juliane Kokott  and
Kai-Guido Schick
Juliane Kokott
Affiliation:
University of St. Gallen, Switzerland
Kai-Guido Schick
Affiliation:
University of St. Gallen, Switzerland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 95 , Issue 3 , July 2001 , pp. 661 - 666
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Case C-300/98, Parfums Christian Dior SA v. Tuk Consultancy BV, and Case C-392/98, Assco Gerüste GmbH v. Wilhelm Layher GmbH & Co. KG (Dec. 14, 2000) [hereinafter Dior-Assco judgment]. See the Web site of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ), <http://www.curia.eu.int/en/index.htm>, for its recent judgments and the opinions of the advocate general.

2 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations: The Legal Texts 365, reprinted in 33 ILM 81 (1994) [hereinafter TRIPS Agreement].

3 Pursuant to Article 234 (previously Article 177) of the Treaty Establishing The European Community, Mar. 25, 1957, 298 UNTS 11, 37 ILM 56 (1998), as amended by Treaty of Amsterdam, Oct. 2, 1997, O.J. (C 340)1 (1997) [hereinafter EC Treaty]

4 Article 50(6) provides:

[P]rovisional measures taken on the basis of paragraphs 1 and 2 above shall, upon request by the defendant, be revoked or otherwise cease to have effect, if proceedings leading to a decision on the merits of the case are not initiated within a reasonable period, to be determined by the judicial authority ordering the measures where national law so permits or, in the absence of such a determination, not to exceed twenty working days or thirty-one calendar days, whichever is the longer.

5 Article 50(1) provides:

The judicial authorities .shall have the authority to order prompt and effective provisional measures: (a) to prevent an infringement of any intellectual property right from occurring, and in particular to prevent the entry into the channels of commerce in their jurisdiction of goods, including imported goods immediately after customs clearance;

(b) to preserve relevant evidence in regard to the alleged infringement.

6 The European Economic Area comprises Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

7 Tuk could therefore not rely on the settled ECJ case law concerning the exhaustion of intellectual property rights. See Case 16/74, Centrafarm BV v. Winthrop BV, 1974 ECR 1183, paras. 9-11 (1974). The possibility of international exhaustion has been rejected by the ECJ in its recent case law. See Case C-355/96, Silhouette Int’l Schmied GmbH & Co. KG v. Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH, 1998 ECR 1-4799, para. 26; Case C-173/98, Sebago Inc. v. GB-Unic SA, 1999 ECR 1-4103, para. 22; see also Patricia Egli & Juliane Kokott, Case Report: Sebago Inc. and Ancienne Maison Dubois & Fils SA v. GB-Unic SA, 94 AJIL 386 (2000).

8 See Opinion 1/94, Competence of the Community to Conclude International Agreements Concerning Services and the Protection of Intellectual Property, 1994 ECR 1-5267.

9 Case C-53/96, Hermès Int’l v. FHT Marketing Choice BV, 1998 ECR 1-3603, para. 32.

10 Dior-Assco judgment, supra note 1, paras. 37-40.

11 See Opinion 1/94, supra note 8, para. 105.

12 The ECJ thus follows its settled case law on Article 300(6) (previously Article 228 (6)) of the EC Treaty. See Opinion 1/94, supra note 8, para. 9; Opinion 1/75, 1975 ECR 1-1355, 1360.

13 See the decision in Case 104/81, Hauptzollamt Mainz v. C.A. Kupferberg & Cie. KG a.A., 1982 ECR 3641, para. 13, where the ECJ held that international agreements are binding on both the EC and its member states.

14 See Case C-61/94, Commission v. Federal Republic of Germany, 1996 ECR 1-3989, para. 52; Case C-286/90, Anklagemyndyheden v. Poulsen, 1992 ECR 1-6019, para. 9.

15 In Opinion 1/94, supra note 8, para. 104, the ECJ expressed its view that there exists a potential competence for the EC to harmonize rules relating to the protection of intellectual property rights.

16 See Hermès Int’l para. 32 (citing Case C-28/95, Leur-Bloem v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen, 1997 ECR 1-4161, para. 34).

17 The ECJ thus rejects the position of the advocate general. See Opinion of Advocate General Cosmas (July 11, 2000), Dior-Assco judgment, supra note 1.

18 See Case C-12/86, Demirel v. Stadt Schwäbisch Gmünd, 1987 ECR 3719, para. 14.

19 See Case C-149/96, Portuguese Republic v. Council of the European Union, 1999 ECR 1-8395, para. 42. In that decision the ECJ denied direct effect of the World Trade Organization agreements. See also Patricia Egli & Juliane Kokott, Case Report: Portuguese Republic v. Council of the European Union, 94 AJIL 740 (2000).

20 Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Apr. 15, 1994, The Results if The Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations: The Legal Texts 5 (1994).

21 Dior-Assco judgment, supra note 1, para. 44.

22 Id., para. 46.

23 Id., para. 47; see id., para. 49.

24 Id., para. 48; see id., para. 49.

25 The ECJ leaves it to the national court in Assco Gerüste to determine whether the industrial design at issue in the case satisfies the requirements of TRIPS Article 25 concerning the conditions for protection of such a industrial design. Id., para. 54

26 Id., para. 60. The ECJ refers here to the TRIPS Agreement’s preamble. See id., para. 56.

27 EC Treaty, supra note 3, Art. 234(b) (previously Art. 177).

28 See Case C-181/73, Haegeman v. Belgian State, 1974 ECR 449, paras. 2-6; Case C-12/86, Demirel v. Stadt Schwäbisch Gmünd, 1987 ECR 3719, para. 7.

29 See, e.g., Andrea Ott.Gattund WTO Im Gemeinschaftsrecht 217 (1997). See also Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro (Nov. 13, 1997), Case C-53/96, Hermès Int’l v. FHT Marketing Choice BV (June 16, 1998) (preferring a more extensive jurisdiction for the ECJ).

30 It is not unusual that at the time that an agreement is signed, it remains open how the competence is distributed between the EC and its member states. See, e.g., Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 Concerning the Conclusion on Behalf of the European Community, as Regards Matters Within Its Competence, of the Agreements Reached in the Uruguay Round Multilateral Negotiations (1986 to 1994), 19940.J. (L 336) 1.

31 This aspect is especially relevant for the TRIPS Agreement because of the still-existing competence of the EC to harmonize national provisions in this sector. See Opinion 1/94, supra note 8, para. 104.

32 See Case C-28/95, Leur-Bloem v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen, 1997 ECR 1-4190, para. 34. For criticism of this approach, see the Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs (Sept. 17, 1996), Case C-28/95, Leur-Bloem v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen, 1997 E.C.R. 1-4165, para. 49.

33 See Hermès Int’l, para. 32.

34 The ECJ could therefore not determine the possible direct effect of the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement that fall within the competence of member states. See Dior-Assco judgment, supra note 1, para. 49.

35 See Hermes Int’l, para. 32.

36 See Dior-Assco judgment, supra note 1, para. 36; see also Opinion 1/94, supra note 8, para. 108.

37 See, e.g., Drexl, Josef, The TRIPS Agreement and the EC: What Comes Next After Joint Competence, in From Gattto Trips 18 (Friedrich-Karl, Beier & Schricker, Gerhard eds., 1996)Google Scholar; Katzenberger, Paul, TRIPS und das Urheberrecht, 1995 Grur Int’L 447, 459 Google Scholar.

38 See TRIPS Agreement, supra note 2, pmbl.

39 Both are implemented in the TRIPS Agreement.

40 See Case C-149/96, Portuguese Republic v. Council of the European Union, 1999 ECR1-8395, para. 47.

41 Dior-Assco judgment, supra note 1, para. 47.

42 See Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs (Feb. 15, 2001), Pending Case C-89/99, Schieving-Nijstad v. Groeneveld, para. 39; see also Drexl, supra note 37, at 35.

43 Dior-Assco judgment, supra note 1, para. 47; see Case C-61/94, Commission v. Federal Republic of Germany, 1996 ECR 1-3989.