Blog » WHEN ARE TRADEMARK RIGHTS EXHAUSTED IN THE EU? PART I – THE BASIC RULE
WHEN ARE TRADEMARK RIGHTS EXHAUSTED IN THE EU? PART I – THE BASIC RULE
29 April 2019
A trademark right gives the proprietor the sole right to use and exploit the trademark and to prohibit others form using that trademark. However, there is an exception from this general prohibition, which is the principle of exhaustion giving possibility for parallel importers to commercialize trademarked goods. In this article we summarize when trademark rights are exhausted under the EU law.
1. Harmonized EU law
When it comes to the exhaustion of trademarks rights, it is fully harmonized within the European Union in order to ensure the free movement of goods. The exhaustion applies to both the trademarks of an EU Member State (“national trademark”) and to the European Union trademarks (“EU trademark”).
The exhaustion of trademark rights occurs throughout the European Economic Area (EEA) and the territorial scope of the exhaustion cannot be broadened by the national laws of an EU Member State.
2. The exhaustion-rule
Based on the exhaustion rule the use of the trademark cannot be prohibited in relation to goods which have been put on the market in the EEA under that trademark by the proprietor or with his consent.
Even if the above conditions are met, exhaustion does not apply if the proprietor has legitimate reasons to oppose further commercialization of the goods.
First, we will analyse the general conditions of the exhaustion rule, while in a further article we will examine what are legitimate reasons based on which the proprietor can still prohibit the use of trademark.
3. Putting on the market
The first condition of the exhaustion is that the individual goods bearing the trademark shall be put on the market in the EEA.
The goods are only considered to be put on the market if the proprietor carried out an act, for example a sale, which allows him to realise the economic value of the trademark. Sole preparatory acts, such as importing are not sufficient for the exhaustion.
In several case, the CJEU dealt with the issue, whether the exhaustion rule applies in relation with trademarked samples of goods (eg. small perfume battles and testers) which the proprietor provides to authorized dealers. In these cases, the CJEU held that if the proprietor makes available the testers for demonstration purposes and prohibits their sale, the goods cannot be considered as put on the market.
4. The proprietor’s consent
The exhaustion only takes place if putting on the market has been carried out by the proprietor or with his consent.
It is easier to decide whether it was the proprietor who put the goods on the market. It is much more difficult to establish if putting on the market happened with the proprietor’s consent.
Based on the CJEU’s case-law, the burden of proving consent rests on the person seeking to justify the commercialization of the trademarked goods, and it is not for the proprietor to demonstrate the absence of the consent.
5. Under „that” trademark
Finally, putting on the market shall happen under the same trademark in order for the exhaustion rule to be applicable.
It is the CJEU’s well-established case law that the exhaustion rule does not apply if the parallel importer replaced the original trademark with another one used by the proprietor in the country of importation.
However, the exhaustion rule may apply if the replacement is objectively necessary in order to place the products on the market in the country of importation.
CAN YOUR DEBTOR ESCAPE LIQUIDATION BY SETTING OFF CLAIMS IN HUNGARY?
The initiation of a liquidation procedure is an effective debt collection method, since the debtor may only avoid being liquidated by paying the claim if the conditions specified in the Act on Bankruptcy Proceedings and Liquidation (Bankruptcy Act) are met. For this reason, in the case of liquidation, one of the most common defences of the debtor is the reference to offsetting. But can the debtor refer to offsetting without limitation during liquidation? In our short article we answer this question.Read more »
SZIGET FESTIVAL FINED RECORD HUF 30 MILLION FOR GDPR BREACHES – WHAT WENT WRONG?
A few days prior to the first anniversary of the entry into force of the GDPR the Hungarian Data Protection Authority imposed the biggest data protection fine in Hungary so far. The target was the biggest Hungarian festival organizer company thanks to whom the public may enjoy the SZIGET, the VOLT or the Balaton Sound Festival. The Data Protection Authority reviewed the check-in system of the festival and the data processing in relation with the check-in. In our short article we summarize the mistakes the Authority identified.Read more »
CONSTRUCTION TRUSTEESHIP IN HUNGARY - GETTING PAID IN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AS SUBCONTRACTOR
Construction trusteeship, as mandatory collateral management of major private construction projects in Hungary, strives for protecting subcontractors against non-paying general contractor, by allowing direct payments from employer under certain conditions. How does it work in practice and what are the limits of subcontractor protection? We address these issues in this article.Read more »