Though a company could prevent parallel import within the EU, it could not prevent goods sold outside the EU but without restriction on re-sale, being subsequently re-sold into the EU. The removal of a numbering mark did not materially reduce its quality.
References: Times 24-May-1999,  RPC 631
Statutes: Trade Mark Council Directive 89/104/EEC
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Levi Strauss and Co and Another v Tesco Stores Ltd and others ChD 31-Jul-2002
The trade mark owners sought to restrain the defendants from selling within the EU, articles bearing their mark which had been imported other than through their own channels. The defendants resisted summary judgement after reference to the European . .
(,  EWHC 1556 (Ch),  ETMR 95)
- Referral – Zino 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 . .
(Times 23-Nov-01, C-416/99, C-414/99, C-415/99,  1 CMLR 1, ,  EUECJ C-414/99, ,  EUECJ C-415/99, ,  EUECJ C-416/99,  RPC 20,  ECR I-8691,  2 WLR 321,  CEC 154,  All ER (EC) 55,  Ch 109,  ETMR 9)
- Cited – Oracle 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 . .
(,  UKSC 27,  1 WLR 2026, , UKSC 2010/0203, , ,  ETMR 43,  Bus LR 1631,  1 WLR 2026,  3 CMLR 28,  4 All ER 338,  ECC 27,  Eu LR 727)
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 21 November 2020; Ref: scu.90689