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

The Industry Patent Quality Charter hosted a conference in which it discussed the importance of granting high-quality patents
Julia Holden explains why, if she weren’t in IP, she would be directing and producing live English-language theatre
The impact of the recently agreed treaty may be modest at first but is likely to become more significant over time
Meet the esteemed judges who are assessing the first-ever Social Impact Awards
Lawyers debate whether the Supreme Court’s ruling helps maintain confidence in the trademark system
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The group of lawyers, which includes seven IP partners, say they were impressed by ArentFox Schiff's wide-reaching experience
Andy Sherman, general counsel at Dolby Laboratories, says the company will continue to make GE Licensing’s patents available through existing pools
CMS, which represents Nestlé, had been told to respond to a cancellation action by February 12 but filed its response a day later
Keith Bergelt, CEO of the Open Invention Network, explains why AI technologies were not part of an update to its cross-licensing project
Gift this article