1. 12 Feb. 1999. For the full text see http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg15.

2. COM(97)314.

3. Proposal for Directive on Utility Models (1998) O.J. C36/13Google Scholar, adopted 12 Dec. 1997. See Suthersanen [1998] E.I.P.R. 47.Google Scholar

4. Early decisions by OHIM Opposition Division are now beginning to be reported also (E.T.M.R.). For the opposition procedure see Gevers, & Tatham, [1998] E.I.P.R. 22.Google Scholar

5. (1997) 46 I.C.L.Q. 712.Google Scholar

6. Council Directive 89/104/EEC (1989) O.J. L40/1, Art.7(2).Google Scholar

7. Joined Cases C–427, 429 and 436/93, Bristol-Myers Squibb & Others v. Paranova A/S; Joined Cases C–71, 72 and 73/94, Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH v. Beiersdorf AG & Others; Case C–232/94, MPA Pharma GmbH v. Rhóne-Poulenc Pharma GmbH [1997] F.S.R. 102.Google Scholar

8. Case C–349/95, Loendersloot (Frits), trading as F. Loendersloot Internationale Expeditie v. George Ballantine & Son Limited [1998] F.S.R. 544Google Scholar, [1998] 1 E.T.M.R. 10Google Scholar, [1998] 1 C.M.L.R. 1015.Google Scholar Here a goods carrier “decoded” bottles of Scotch whisky by removing identification numbers which their producers had put on them in order to trace parallel imports. Some labels with trade marks were removed and replaced with similar labels. The trade mark owner cannot resist this if his marketing system contributes to the artificial partitioning of the markets, if repackaging cannot affect the original condition of the product, if the presentation of the relabelled product is not such as to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark and its owner and the person who relabels the products informs the trade mark owner of the relabelling before the relabelled products are put on sale. This final condition is less stringent than for Pharmaceuticals, where a repackager must also supply a specimen of the repackaged product if asked, and state on the repackaged product the person responsible for the repackaging. For concerns about this approach see Clark, [1998] E.I.P.R. 328.Google ScholarSee also Case C–352/95, Phytheron International SA v. Jean Bourdon SA [1997] F.S.R. 936.Google Scholar

9. Case C–337/95, Parfums Christian Dior SA & Parfums Christian Dior BV v. Evora BV [1997] E.C.R. 1–6013Google Scholar, [1998] R.P.C. 166Google Scholar, [[1998] E.T.M.R. 26Google Scholar, [1998] 1 C.M.L.R. 737.Google Scholar

10. There was little explanation of what might be considered serious damage. For possible options see Advocate General Jacobs's opinion in Case C–63/97 BMW v. Deenik [1998] E.T.M.R. 348.Google Scholar

11. Case C–355/96, Silhouette International v. Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft [1998] 2 C.M.L.R. 953Google Scholar, [1998] F.S.R. 474 and 729.Google Scholar

12. Competition law may offer an alternative: see e.g. Case C–173/98 Sebago Inc. & Ancienne Maison Dubois et Fils SA v. G–B Unic SA. For further discussion of the merits of the exhaustion problem see Cornish, , [1998] E.I.P.R. 172Google Scholar; Hays, and Hansen, [1998] E.I.P.R. 277Google Scholar; Wooldridge, [1998] I.P.Q. No.4 436Google Scholar; Carboni, [1998] E.I.P.R. 470Google Scholar; Clark, [1999] E.I.P.R. 1Google Scholar; Alexander, (1999) 24 E.L.R. 56.Google Scholar Note also the view of the ETFA Court that the principle of international exhaustion is in the interest of free trade and competition, and that, in the EEA context, Art.7(1) of Directive 89/104 is to be interpreted as leaving it up to the EFTA States to decide whether they wish to introduce or maintain the principle of international exhaustion of rights conferred by a trade mark with regard to goods originating outside the EEA: E–2/97 Mag Instrument v. California Trading Company Norway [1998] E.T.M.R. 85.Google Scholar

13. Council Directive 89/104/EEC (1989) O.J. L40/1, Arts.4(1)(b) and 5(1)(b).Google Scholar

14. Case C–251/95 Sabel BV v. Puma AG [1997] E.C.R. 1–6191Google Scholar, [1998] 1 C.M.L.R. 445Google Scholar, [1998] 1 E.T.M.R. 1.Google Scholar This offers the trade mark owner a narrower area of protection than Benelux law, which is sympathetic to the idea that non-origin association is harmful to trade marks. For the approach in the English courts see Wagamama Ltd v. City Centre Restaurants [1995] F.S.R. 713Google Scholar and British Sugar Plc v. James Robertson & Sons Ltd [1996] R.P.C. 281.Google Scholar For the debate see Harris, [1995] 12 E.I.P.R.Google Scholar; Prescott [1996] E.I.P.R. 317Google Scholar; Carboni, [1998] E.I.P.R. 107Google Scholar; Gielen, [1998] E.I.P.R. 109Google Scholar; Norman, [1998] E.I.P.R. 306Google Scholar; Dawson, [1998] I.P.Q. No.4 350Google Scholar; Van de, Kamp [1998] E.I.P.R. 364.Google Scholar Art.5(2) of the Directive allows for the protection of a trade mark against use of the mark which takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, its distinctive character or repute. The question had arisen as to whether the use complained of had to be a confusing use; British Sugar plc (supra); Baywatch Productions Co. v. The Home Video Channel [1997] F.S.R. 22Google Scholar; British Telecommunications plc & Ors v. One in a Million Ltd [1999] E.T.M.R. 61. Sabel, though obiter, makes it clear that it does not.Google Scholar

15. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, Japan v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc. (formerly Pathé Communications Corporation, USA) [1999] E.T.M.R. 1.Google Scholar

16. This test has been criticised for increasing the protection available to distinctive marks by suggesting that, the more distinctive the mark is, the greater the scope for interpreting what may be regarded as “similar goods”. See Carty, [1997] E.I.P.R. 684Google Scholar; Montagnon, [1998] E.I.P.R. 401.Google Scholar

17. Case C53/96, Hermès International v. FHT Marketing Choice BV [1998] E.T.M.R. 425.Google Scholar

18. See Wooldridge, [1999] I.P.Q. No.1 124.Google Scholar

19. Directive 91/250 on the Legal Protection of Computer Programs (1991) O.J. L122/42Google Scholar, Directive 96/9 on the Legal Protection of Databases (1996) O.J. L77/20Google Scholar; Directive 92/100 on Rental Right and Lending Right and on Certain Rights Related to Copyright in the Field of Intellectual Property (1992) O.J. L346/61Google Scholar; Directive 93/83 on the Coordination of Certain Rules Concerning Copyright and Rights Related to Copyright Applicable to Satellite Broadcasting and Cable Retransmission (1993) O.J. L248/15Google Scholar; Directive 93/98 Harmonising the Term of Protection of Copyright and Certain Related Rights (1993) O.J. L290/9.Google Scholar

20. Directive 92/100 (1992) O.J. L346/61.Google Scholar

21. Case C–200/96 Metronome Musik GmbH v. Music Point Hokamp [1998] 3 C.M.L.R. 919. Nor is the rental right exhausted when it is first exercised in one of the member States of the Community. Case C–61/97, Foreningen af danske Videogramdistributører v. Laserdisken, judgment of 22 Sept. 1998.Google Scholar

22. European Parliament and Council Directive on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society COM(97)628 final (1998) O.J. C108/6.Google Scholar

23. For instance, the creation of “cache” copies during transmission over the Internet.

24. For criticism see Hart, [1998] E.I.P.R. 169Google Scholar; Cornish, G. P. [1998] E.I.P.R. 241. The European Parliament generally endorsed the amendments suggested by its Legal Affairs Committee, including those requiring some of the optional exemptions to be conditional on fair compensation for the right holders.Google Scholar

25. For more see von Lewinski [1998] E.I.P.R. 135Google Scholar; Dietz, [1998] I.P.Q. No.4 335.Google Scholar

26. 12 Mar. 1998 (O.J. C125/8).Google Scholar

27. For discussion see Merryman, [1997] I.P.Q. No.1 16Google Scholar; Hughes, [1997] 12 E.I.P.R. 694Google Scholar; Booton, [1998] I.P.Q. No.2 165.Google Scholar

28. Legal Protection of Databases Directive 96/9 (1996) O.J. L77/20.Google Scholar Implemented in the UK on 1 Jan. 1998 by the Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997 (S.I. 1997 No.3032).

29. Potential problems and uncertainties remain: see Adams, [1998] E.I.P.R. 129Google Scholar; Chalton, [1998] E.I.P.R. 178.Google Scholar

30. Directive 98/71 on the Legal protection of Designs (1998) O.J. L289/28Google Scholar, adopted by the Council 24 Sept. 1998, implementation by 28 Oct. 2001. The draft Regulation to create a Community Design Right has made no progress: (1994) O.J. C29/20Google Scholar (adopted by the Commission 3 Dec. 1993).

31. Speyhart, [1997] E.I.P.R. 603.Google Scholar

32. Directive 98/4 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (1998) O.J. L213/13Google Scholar, adopted by the Council 6 July 1998, implementation by 30 July 2000.

33. All ethical aspects of biotechnology are to be evaluated by the Commission's European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies. The Directive also acknowledges the need to recognise the fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. See also Sterckx, [1998] E.I P.R. 123Google Scholar; Nott, [1998] E.I.P.R. 347.Google Scholar

34. But now see Nott, [1999] E.I.P.R. 33.Google Scholar