PERFUME PROBLEMS
Te case concerns some Issey Miyake and Narciso Rodriguez 3 dimensional perfume glasses and perfume packages in Hungary, and the infringement was committed by a Czech Internet distributor company operating in several middle-Eastern European countries.
Te plaintiff is a subsidiary of a group producing luxury perfume products, and holds trademarks for a box and bottle for ‘Issey Miyake Paris L’eau D’issey’, and the Narciso Rodriguez perfume bottle.
Te plaintiff became aware that a Czech company was offering Narciso Rodriguez and Issey Miyake products and testers on the website ‘iparfumeria. hu’. It also operated similar websites in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland. A test-purchase demonstrated that the original products were imported to Hungary from Saudi Arabia and Puerto Rico.
A trademark infringement lawsuit was initiated at the Metropolitan Court relying on Articles 9, 13, and 14 of the Community Trademark Regulation.
Te court established that the defendant infringed the trademarks by importing, offering for sale, marketing and advertising the testers and perfume bottles in the territory of Hungary. Te court prohibited the defendant from further infringement, obliged it to publish the ordering part of the judgement on its website and to provide business information.
Te case has touched on several interesting aspects, such as the question of the extent of jurisdiction of community trademark law, and the status of testers, while it also confirms several European Court of Justice (ECJ) decisions about the exhaustion of rights.
Competence of foreign courts
Te defendant is domiciled in the Czech Republic, but the lawsuit was initiated in Hungary where the infringement occurred. Te judgment ruled that if the foreign websites can be reached from Hungary and products could be ordered from them, the Metropolitan Court has competence regarding Hungary.
If an infringement action is initiated on the basis of Article 97 (1) to (4) in a country where the defendant is domiciled—then according to Article 98 (1) national courts have jurisdiction in respect of acts of infringement committed within the territory of any of the member states.
According to Article 97 (5), proceedings may also be brought in the courts of the member state in which the infringement has been committed. According to Article 98 (2), a Community trademark court whose jurisdiction is based on
www.worldipreview.com
trademark owner to demonstrate its absence. Te Metropolitan Court stated that in the present case, the defendant had failed to prove even the existence of the circumstances defined in the ECJ decision, and therefore there is no exhaustion of the trademark.
Testers and selective distribution system
Article 97 (5) has jurisdiction only in respect of acts committed within the territory of the particular member state.
As the defendant was a Czech company, and the infringement was committed in Hungary, the judgment relates only to actions carried out concerning Hungary, and so the court did not oblige the defendant to supply data about its foreign warehouses.
Te court stated that even if the products are available under domains ending with .cz and .pl, one cannot draw the conclusion that no offering for sale or marketing is performed in the territory of Hungary, and therefore the competence of the court could be established, as it is common for Hungarian consumers to buy things from foreign websites. However, it was for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant actually fulfilled orders to Hungary from foreign websites. As the plaintiff did not prove this, the court finally could not take into consideration websites in foreign countries.
Exhaustion of trademark rights within the EEA
Te court has referred to the ECJ decision No. C-244/00 (Van Doren, so-called Stüssy), and in view of which the plaintiff had proved by a test purchase that products had first been marketed outside of the territory of the European Economic Area (EEA), and so it would be for the defendant to prove that plaintiff had consented to further marketing the product in the EEA. Of course the defendant could not prove consent, so this ground of exhaustion was not raised. Te defendant referred to implied consent. According to decisions C-414/99, C-415/99 and C-416/99 (Davidoff v Levi Strauss), consent to marketing within the EEA must be so expressed that an intention to renounce those rights is unequivocally demonstrated. Tis can be done primarily in the form of an express declaration; it cannot, however, be excluded that there are certain circumstances in which this can implicitly be inferred. Tese factors must unequivocally demonstrate that the trademark owner has renounced any intention to enforce his exclusive right. It is for the trader alleging consent to prove it and not for the
Te plaintiff maintains a selective distribution network, meaning that members of the network must fulfil strict quality requirements. It proved that the defendant distributes testers in plain boxes without a cup. Te court confirmed that these bottles without a cup are confusingly similar to the ‘Issey Miyake’ trademark, therefore their distribution qualified as trademark infringement.
Te defendant alleged the exhaustion of testers. Te plaintiff argued that it gave the testers to members of its distribution system for the purpose of presenting the scent in a brick-and- mortar shop, and therefore they are not ‘goods’ intended for distribution. Te court confirmed this, stating that exhaustion may not emerge as testers are not intended for selling purposes, and so the place of origin of the testers was irrelevant in the absence of putting them on the market. n
Dr Judit Lantos is an attorney at law and partner at Sár & Partners and Danubia Patent & Law Office. She can be contacted at:
judit.lantos@
danubia.hu
Judit Lantos graduated from the Faculty of Law at Eötvös Loránd University in 1995 and in 1998, she was a founder member of Sár & Partners Attorneys at Law. Her special area is the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, in particular in the field of trademark law. Her practice at Danubia includes contract draſting and negotiating in IP matters, trademark prosecution and infringement, domain name issues, and competition and commercial law. As a member of the Law Enforcement Group, she is involved in law enforcement in the field of intellectual property rights.
World Intellectual Property Review November/December 2011 65
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100