This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62000CJ0244
Judgment of the Court of 8 April 2003. # Van Doren + Q. GmbH v Lifestyle sports + sportswear Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Michael Orth. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bundesgerichtshof - Germany. # Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 7(1) - Exhaustion of the right conferred by the trade mark - Evidence - Place where the goods are first placed on the market by the trade mark proprietor or with his consent - Consent of the trade mark proprietor to placing on the market in the EEA. # Case C-244/00.
Wyrok Trybunału z dnia 8 kwietnia 2003 r.
Van Doren + Q. GmbH przeciwko Lifestyle sports + sportswear Handelsgesellschaft mbH i Michael Orth.
Wniosek o wydanie orzeczenia w trybie prejudycjalnym: Bundesgerichtshof - Niemcy.
Dyrektywa 89/104/CEE - Artykuł 7.
Sprawa C-244/00.
Wyrok Trybunału z dnia 8 kwietnia 2003 r.
Van Doren + Q. GmbH przeciwko Lifestyle sports + sportswear Handelsgesellschaft mbH i Michael Orth.
Wniosek o wydanie orzeczenia w trybie prejudycjalnym: Bundesgerichtshof - Niemcy.
Dyrektywa 89/104/CEE - Artykuł 7.
Sprawa C-244/00.
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2003:204
*A9* Bundesgerichtshof, Vorlagebeschluß vom 11/05/2000 (I ZR 193/97)
- Der Betrieb 2000 p. VIII (résumé)
- Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, internationaler Teil 2000 p.927-930
- Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht 2000 p.879-882
- Juristenzeitung 2000 p.303* (résumé)
- Markenrecht 2000 p.266-2270
- Recht der internationalen Wirtschaft 2000 p.790-793
- Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis 2000 p.1280-1284
- Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 2000 p.1268-1271
- The European Legal Forum 2001 p.28-31
- European Current Law 2001 Part 2 nº 53 (résumé)
- The European Legal Forum 2001 p.29-31
- Lehment, Cornelis: Stüssy: Rückkehr zum lückenlosen Vertriebssystem?, Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis 2002 p.1215-1219
«(Trade marks – Directive 89/104/EEC – Article 7(1) – Exhaustion of the right conferred by the trade mark – Evidence – Place where the goods are first placed on the market by the trade mark proprietor or with his consent – Consent of the trade mark proprietor to placing on the market in the EEA)»
|
I - 0000 | |||
|
I - 0000 | |||
(Arts 28 and 30 EC; Council Directive 89/104, Art. 7(1))
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
8 April 2003 (1)
((Trade marks – Directive 89/104/EEC – Article 7(1) – Exhaustion of the right conferred by the trade mark – Evidence – Place where the goods are first placed on the market by the trade mark proprietor or with his consent – Consent of the trade mark proprietor to placing on the market in the EEA))
In Case C-244/00, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Van Doren + Q.GmbHand
Lifestyle sports + sportswear Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Michael Orth, on the interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and of Article 7(2) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1), as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3),THE COURT,,
after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:
having regard to the Report for the Hearing,
after hearing the oral observations of Lifestyle sports + sportswear Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Mr Orth, of the German Government, of the French Government and of the Commission at the hearing on 8 January 2002,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 18 June 2002,
gives the following
On those grounds,
THE COURT,
in answer to the question referred to it by the Bundesgerichtshof by order of 11 May 2000, hereby rules: A rule of evidence according to which exhaustion of the trade mark right constitutes a plea in defence for a third party against whom the trade mark proprietor brings an action, so that the existence of the conditions for such exhaustion must, as a rule, be proved by the third party who relies on it, is consistent with Community law and, in particular, with Articles 5 and 7 of 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. However, the requirements deriving from the protection of the free movement of goods enshrined, inter alia , in Articles 28 EC and 30 EC may mean that this rule of evidence needs to be qualified. Accordingly, where a third party succeeds in establishing that there is a real risk of partitioning of national markets if he himself bears that burden of proof, particularly where the trade mark proprietor markets his products in the European Economic Area using an exclusive distribution system, it is for the proprietor of the trade mark to establish that the products were initially placed on the market outside the European Economic Area by him or with his consent. If such evidence is adduced, it is for the third party to prove the consent of the trade mark proprietor to subsequent marketing of the products in the European Economic Area.
Rodríguez Iglesias |
Puissochet |
Wathelet |
Schintgen |
Gulmann |
La Pergola |
Jann |
Skouris |
Macken |
Colneric |
von Bahr |
|
R. Grass |
G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias |
Registrar |
President |