Sebago and Maison Dubois et Fils SA v GB-Unic SA: ECJ 1 Jul 1999

The fact that specific goods bearing a Trade Mark had been authorised for distribution within the EEA, did not mean that the relative trade mark rights had been exhausted. They would only be exhausted where the consent related to each individual item in respect of which the exhaustion was pleaded. National rules providing for exhaustion by consent to products being put on the market outside the EEA were in breach of the EC Treaty.
The combined effect of articles 5 and 7.1 of the directive is to confer on the trade mark proprietor the exclusive right to control the first marketing in the EEA of goods bearing his trade mark, even if they are genuine goods which have previously been put on the market by him or with his consent outside the EEA.
JP Puissochet, P
Times 07-Jul-1999, [2000] Ch 558, (1999) ECR I-1403, [1999] EUECJ C-173/98, C-173/98
EC Treaty Art 234 (formerly 177), Council Directive 89/104/EEC 7(1)
CitedSilhouette International Schmied GmbH and Co KG v Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH ECJ 16-Jul-1998
National Trade Mark rules providing for exhaustion of rights in Trade Marks for goods sold outside area of registration were contrary to the EU first directive on trade marks. A company could prevent sale of ‘grey goods’ within the internal market. . .

Cited by:
CitedZino Davidoff SA v A and G Imports Ltd etc ECJ 20-Nov-2001
An injunction was sought to prevent retailers marketing in the EEA products which had been obtained outside the EEA for resale within the EEA but outside the controlled distribution system.
Held: Silence alone was insufficient to constitute . .
CitedL’Oreal Sa and Others v Ebay International Ag and Others ChD 22-May-2009
The court was asked as to whether the on-line marketplace site defendant was liable for trade mark infringements by those advertising goods on the web-site.
Held: The ECJ had not yet clarified the law on accessory liability in trade mark . .
CitedOracle America Inc v M-Tech Data Ltd SC 27-Jun-2012
The appellant complained that the respondent had imported into the European Economic Area disk drives bearing its trade marks in breach of the appellant’s rights. The respondent had argued that the appellant had abused its position by withholding . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 January 2021; Ref: scu.162387