Reports of Cases

2001 I-08691

Subject-matter

Preliminary ruling ─ High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) ─ Interpretation of Article 7(1) and (2) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks ─ Exhaustion of a right conferred by the trade mark ─ Product placed on the market in the European Economic Area with the consent of the trade mark proprietor ─ Consent implied if the proprietor has marketed the product in a non-member country without taking the measures necessary to prohibit its re-exportation to the European Economic Area ─ Legitimate reasons why the proprietor is against further marketing of the product ─ Removal of the consignment number which must be marked on the product pursuant to Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products

Systematic classification scheme

Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

• Directive 76/768 : paragraphs 8, 16
• Directive 89/104 -A05 : paragraphs 32, 39 - 41
• Directive 89/104 -A05P1 : paragraph 59
• Directive 89/104 -A05P1LA : paragraph 3
• Directive 89/104 -A05P3LC : paragraph 3
• Directive 89/104 -A06 : paragraph 39
• Directive 89/104 -A07 : paragraphs 32, 39
• Directive 89/104 -A07P1 : paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 16, 28, 30, 35 - 66
• Directive 89/104 -A07P2 : paragraphs 1, 4, 16
• Directive 89/104 -C9 : paragraph 42
• Agreement on the European Economic Area -N17PT4 : paragraphs 5, 30
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -355/96 : paragraphs 32, 39
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -173/98 : paragraph 33

Operative part

• Interprets : Directive 89/104 -A07P1

Opinion

• EC Treaty (Maastricht), Article 30 : points 78, 82
  
• EC Treaty (Maastricht), Article 36 : points 78, 82, 115
  
• EC Treaty (Maastricht), Article 100A : point 33
  
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 28 : point 78
  
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 30 : points 78, 83, 87
  
• Directive 76/768 : points 14, 121
  
• Directive 89/104 -A01P2 : point 108
  
• Directive 89/104 -A05 : points 34, 36, 96
  
• Directive 89/104 -A05P1 : point 37
  
• Directive 89/104 -A05P1LA : point 25
  
• Directive 89/104 -A05P3 : point 25
  
• Directive 89/104 -A06 : point 34
  
• Directive 89/104 -A07 : points 2, 3, 34 - 36, 83, 96, 115
  
• Directive 89/104 -A07P1 : points 3, 14, 24, 26, 27, 30 - 102
  
• Directive 89/104 -A07P2 : points 2, 14, 26, 27, 101 - 122
  
• Agreement on the European Economic Area -N17PT4 : point 26
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -78/70 : points 68, 71, 74, 82, 87
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -15/74 : points 74, 87
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -16/74 : points 69, 74, 82, 87
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -51/75 : point 83
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -2/77 : point 107
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -144/81 : points 72, 82, 87
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -19/84 : points 87, 93
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -125/88 : point 78
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -106/89 : point 44
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -334/92 : point 44
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -9/93 : points 73, 88, 89, 94, 95
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -427/93 : points 76, 80, 83, 107, 110
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -427/93 : point 86
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -267/95 : point 92
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -337/95 : points 109, 111
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -349/95 : points 107, 114
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -349/95 : point 119
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -200/96 : point 63
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -355/96 : points 3, 33 - 35, 46
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -355/96 : points 37, 79, 83
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -131/97 : point 44
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -379/97 : points 83, 115
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -173/98 : points 3, 77, 90, 91
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -381/98 : points 47, 49
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -143/00 : point 117
  

Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

• 29/10/1999

Date of the Opinion

• 05/04/2001

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

20/11/2001

References

Publication in the Official Journal

Application: OJ C 6 from 08.01.2000, p.18

Judgment: OJ C 3 from 05.01.2002, p.10

Name of the parties

Zino Davidoff and Levi Strauss

Notes on Academic Writings

1. Hays, Thomas: The Burden of Proof in Parallel-Importation Cases, European Intellectual Property Review 2000 p.353-358
2. Stothers, Christopher: International Exhaustion of Trade Marks and Consent in the EEA, European Intellectual Property Review 2001 p.344-348
3. Cushley, Declan: International Exhaustion: The Davidoff (and Levi) Cases, European Intellectual Property Review 2001 p.397-401
4. Baudenbacher, Carl: Internationale Erschöpfung des Markenrechts und der Begriff der Zustimmung, European Law Reporter 2001 p.385-387
5. Van Nispen, C.J.J.C.: Bijblad bij de industriële eigendom 2001 p.435
6. Van Couter, Yves: Davidoff - Levi Strauss, De genadeslag voor de parallelhandel in merkartikelen van niet-EER oorsprong...?, Revue de droit intellectuel : l'ingénieur-conseil 2001 p.478-510
7. Framiñán Santas, Javier: El concepto de consentimiento para la comercialización de productos con marca (Comentario a la Sentencia del TJCE de 20 de noviembre de 2001, casos "Zino Davidoff, S.A." y "Levi's"), Actas de derecho industrial y derecho de autor 2001 p.599-617
8. Bastianon, S.: Il Foro italiano 2002 IV Col.7-9
9. Schovsbo, Jens: Samtykke til parallelimport af mærkevarer, Ugeskrift for Retsvæsen B 2002 p.5-9
10. De Wit, Severin: Intellectuele eigendom & Reclamerecht 2002 p.31-32
11. Gross, Naomi: Trade Mark Exhaustion: The Final Chapter? The ECJ decision in Zino Davidoff / Levi Strauss, European Intellectual Property Review 2002 p.93-96
12. Ohly: Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, internationaler Teil 2002 p.153
13. Kallay, Dina: Levi Strauss v. Tesco: At a Difficult Juncture of Competition, IP and Free Trade Policies, European Competition Law Review 2002 p.193-199
14. Vilmart, Christine: Epuisement du droit de marque: forme du consentement du titulaire de la marque, La Semaine juridique - entreprise et affaires 2002 p.910-912
15. Speyart, H.M.H.: Davidoff I: Gaat de intracommunautaire parallelimport in rook op?, Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht 2002 p.126-130
16. Lidgard, Hans Henrik: Samtyckets betydelse vid internationell varumärkeskonsumtion - EG-domstolens avgörande i "Davidoff-fallet", Nordiskt immateriellt rättsskydd 2002 p.3-15
17. Levin, Marianne: Zino Davidoff och Tesco Stores samt Costco, Europarättslig tidskrift 2002 p.300-312
18. Rubini, Luca: Is the Siege of Fortress Europe Really Over? The Exhaustion of Trademarks in the EC, Competition and International Trade, Legal Issues of Economic Integration 2002 p.205-218
19. O'Keeffe, David ; Keane, Benoît: Common Market Law Review 2002 p.591-607
20. Aplin, Tanya: The Cambridge Law Journal 2002 p.531-533
21. Dyrberg, Peter ; Petursson, Gunnar Thor: What is consent? A note on Davidoff and Levi Strauss, European Law Review 2003 p.464-471
22. Mylly, Tuomas: Zino Davidoff -tapaus ja suostumuskriteeri rinnakkaistuontia koskevissa tapauksissa, Teollisoikeudellisia kirjoituksia V 2003 p.91-100

Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division - United Kingdom

Subject-matter

• Approximation of laws
  
• Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
  

Provisions of national law referred to

Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 1996 The Rules of the Supreme Court 1965, Order 23, Order 14

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

• Reference for a preliminary ruling
  

Formation of the Court

Cour plénière (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Gulmann

Advocate General

Stix-Hackl

Language(s) of the Case

• English
  

Language(s) of the Opinion

• German