France: CJEU issues decision on reconditioning by parallel importers

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

France: CJEU issues decision on reconditioning by parallel importers

Sponsored by

beau-de-lomenie.png

Jurisprudence has had fixed rules for a long time on the reconditioning of pharmaceutical products by parallel importers, without the consent of the trade mark owner.

The reconditioning must not affect the original condition of the product. The presentation of the product must not harm the image of the brand and its proprietor. If there is new packaging, it must clearly indicate the person who carried out the reconditioning and the product. Finally, the importer must notify the trade mark owner of the future sale and provide him with, on request, a specimen of the reconditioning.

These conditions allow the trade mark owner to maintain some control over the distribution of his products by parallel importers.

New opportunities for the parallel market are now offered by a decision recently rendered by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (decision of the CJEU, May 17 2018 C-642/06).

In this case, the parallel importer added a new label on the pharmaceuticals to permit their importation. The trade mark owner opposed this commercialisation insofar as the importer failed to inform him about this reimport and the new packaging adopted.

The Court noted that in all cases until then the reconditioning had required the opening of the original packaging. Here, the packaging had not been modified, nor the original presentation affected.

The Court made the following points:

(i) the importer had limited himself to affixing an additional label on an unprinted part of the packaging, which had not been opened;

(ii) this label was small and included only the name of the parallel importer, its address and telephone number, a barcode and a pharmacological number.

As a result, affixing such a label did not contravene the trade mark holder's rights, and the parallel importer was not obliged to inform the trade mark holder of his action.

marie.jpg

Aurélia Marie

Cabinet Beau de Loménie

158, rue de l’Université

F - 75340 Paris Cedex 07 France

Tel: +33 1 44 18 89 00

Fax: +33 1 44 18 04 23

contact@bdl-ip.com

www.bdl-ip.com

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

US counsel review the key copyright and trademark trends of 2024, including generative AI disputes and SCOTUS cases
If 2024 is anything to go by, the next 12 months could see more IP firms seek investment opportunities while IP lawyers are increasingly likely to work alongside other functions
Practitioners reflect on the impact of USPTO guidance, as well as PTAB and litigation trends
We discuss Managing IP’s 50 most influential people in IP list and look back on the biggest talking points in the last month
Firms explain how they question jurors and account for potential bias in trade secrets cases
A meeting between the EPO and Ericsson, Paul McCartney weighing in on AI and copyright, and a law firm’s STEM pledge were among the top talking points
National courts could combat inconsistencies over the speed of judgments – and provide parties with much-needed certainty – by looking to the UPC
Sources in four jurisdictions discuss the downsides of delayed judgments and why they prefer a well-reasoned, late finding, over a quick ruling that lacks substance
Counsel discuss how likely SCOTUS is to remand closely watched trademark case, which centres on the principle of corporate separateness
Partners at Baker Botts explain why oral arguments were a crucial factor in convincing the Federal Circuit to affirm a lower court ruling
Gift this article