qm certificate in ip: competition law lecture 9: free movement and intellectual property

24
QM Certificate in IP: Competition Law Lecture 9: Free movement and intellectual property

Upload: earl-lester

Post on 20-Jan-2016

218 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: QM Certificate in IP: Competition Law Lecture 9: Free movement and intellectual property

QM Certificate in IP: Competition Law

Lecture 9: Free movement and intellectual property

Page 2: QM Certificate in IP: Competition Law Lecture 9: Free movement and intellectual property

Follow-up

Extraterritoriality

•Morris ‘Iron Curtain at the border: Gazprom and the Russian blocking order to prevent the extraterritoriality of EU competition law’ [2014] ECLR 60

Damages claims

•Dunne ‘Courage and compromise: The directive on anti-trust damages’ [2015] ELRev 581

Page 3: QM Certificate in IP: Competition Law Lecture 9: Free movement and intellectual property

Reading

• Marco Colino/Furse 21.4• Jones and Sufrin, Chapter 10• Stothers Parallel Trade in Europe, ch 2

• Oracle (formerly Sun) v M-Tech [2012] UKSC 27

Further reading, esp on standards

Page 4: QM Certificate in IP: Competition Law Lecture 9: Free movement and intellectual property

TFEU and the Single/Internal Market Ideal, Art 26(2)

“The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties.”

•HMG ‘Review of the balance of competence… services’ (2014), athttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/332668/bis-14-987-free-movement-of-services-balance-of-competencies-report.pdf

Page 5: QM Certificate in IP: Competition Law Lecture 9: Free movement and intellectual property

Free Movement Articles

• Articles 34, 35 – Prohibit quantitative restrictions on imports/export

• Article 36 – allows for derogation• Art 56 – cross-border services (woollier), but

backed up by freedom of establishment Art 49 (ie permanent, with derogations in Arts 51 and 52) & Services Directive 2006/123/EC

• Article 345 –Treaty does not prejudice rules governing systems of property ownership

• market integration/ non partitioning concerns in competition law Arts 101,102

Page 6: QM Certificate in IP: Competition Law Lecture 9: Free movement and intellectual property

Free movement of goods – the numbers

Art 30EEC=Art 28EC (imports)=Art 34 TFEU

Art 34EEC=Art 29EC (exports)=Art 35TFEU

Art 36EEC=Art 30EC(qualification)=Art 36 TFEU

Page 7: QM Certificate in IP: Competition Law Lecture 9: Free movement and intellectual property

Arts 34, 35 TFEU

34. “Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States.”

35. “Quantitative restrictions on exports, and all measures having equivalent effect, shall be prohibited between Member States.”

Page 8: QM Certificate in IP: Competition Law Lecture 9: Free movement and intellectual property

Art 36“The provisions of Articles 34 and 35 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security; the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants; the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value; or the protection of industrial and commercial property. Such prohibitions or restrictions shall not, however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States.”

Page 9: QM Certificate in IP: Competition Law Lecture 9: Free movement and intellectual property

The problem with IP: territoriality plus Art 345 TFEU

• National patent gives its owner the right to prohibit imports into the territory

• National trade mark registration gives owner the right to prohibit use of the mark in course of trade in territory

• Programme licensed for broadcast in one M/S may be received in another M/S where not licensed

• Differences between national rights causes difficulty for cross-border trade (barriers to entry into another Member State)

• This is fetter on free trade in goods or services

Page 10: QM Certificate in IP: Competition Law Lecture 9: Free movement and intellectual property

The solutions

• Introduce Community-wide IP rights by Regulation, eg

---

• What about national rights?

• And what about remedies?DHL Express France v Chronopost [2012]

Page 11: QM Certificate in IP: Competition Law Lecture 9: Free movement and intellectual property

The solutions

• Harmonising directives, eg

• use directly applicable provisions of Treaty to govern exercise of the rights, eg

• develop concepts such as– ‘specific subject matter’ (purposive

interpretation of the rights)– ‘exhaustion’ of rights (single use within the

EU, for rights to make and sell)

Page 12: QM Certificate in IP: Competition Law Lecture 9: Free movement and intellectual property

EU Doctrine ‘Internal’ Exhaustion

• IP gives the power to prohibit or consent to placing product on the single market, or to market it oneself

• Has that power been exercised in the EU?

• Origins – Consten & Grundig - Parke Davis • Emergence – Deutsche Grammophon

– Art 36 derogation limited – DG had exhausted rights by permitting their

records to be sold abroad

Page 13: QM Certificate in IP: Competition Law Lecture 9: Free movement and intellectual property

Patents

Centrapharm v Sterling Drug

Merck v Stephar

Pharmon v Hoescht

Merck v Primecrown

Merck Canada Inc v Sigma Pharmaceuticals Plc [2013] EWCA Civ 326; Ref to CJEU C-539/13 [2015]

Page 14: QM Certificate in IP: Competition Law Lecture 9: Free movement and intellectual property

Trademarks

• Centrapharm v Winthrop• Terrapin v Terranova • Sebago v GB Unic • Zino Davidoff v A&G Importers • Van Doren + Q GmbH v Lifestyle Sports • Peak Holding AB v Axolin-Elinor • Class International BV v Colgate-

Palmolive Co

Page 15: QM Certificate in IP: Competition Law Lecture 9: Free movement and intellectual property

Copyright

• Deutsche Grammophon• Warner Bros • Thuiskopie v Opus • Metronome

• Coditel but FAPL v QC/Murphy v Media Control• Criminal Proceedings against Donner (C-5/11)• UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle C‑128/11[2013]• Art & Allposters (C-419/13) [2015]

Page 16: QM Certificate in IP: Competition Law Lecture 9: Free movement and intellectual property

goods v services?

• Art 56 TFEU (ex Art 49 EC)• Services Directive 2006/123/EC

– n/a broadcasting etc - Art 2(2)(g)– IP is included in ‘overriding reasons relating to the public interes

t’– “Neither does it follow that the non-provision of a service to a

consumer for lack of the required intellectual property rights in a particular territory would constitute unlawful discrimination

– Article 16 ‘Freedom to provide services’ does not apply to copyright or industrial property

• Football Association Premier League v QC Leisure; Murphy v Media Protection Services C-403/08,C-429/08

• trading in‘used’software‘UsedSoft

Page 17: QM Certificate in IP: Competition Law Lecture 9: Free movement and intellectual property

Repackaging

• might be necessary – Member States regulations for example

• Question – are rights exhausted?• Hoffman-La Roche v Centrafarm• Bristol-Myers Squibb v Paranova (re-

packaging, re-affixing mark)• Pharmacia & Upjohn SA v Paranova A/S

C-379/97 [1999] (re-branding with mark used in import state) iff

Page 18: QM Certificate in IP: Competition Law Lecture 9: Free movement and intellectual property

Repackaging, contd

• Boehringer Ingelheim KG v Swingward Ltd• Boehringer Sohn v Paranova A/S • Hollister v MedikOstomy

• Speciality v Doncaster and Madaus [2015]

• Flynn Pharmaceutical v DrugsRUs [2015]

Page 19: QM Certificate in IP: Competition Law Lecture 9: Free movement and intellectual property

Doctrine of Common Origin

NB Terrapin v Terranova

• Sirena v Eda

• Hag I – Doctrine of Common origin

• Reassessment in Hag II

• IHT v Ideal Standard

• Doncaster Pharmaceuticals

• Budejovicky Budvar Narodni Podnik v Rudolf Ammersin (C-478/07) [2009]

Page 20: QM Certificate in IP: Competition Law Lecture 9: Free movement and intellectual property

Plant variety rights

• Greenstar-Kanzi Europe NV v Hustin (C-140/10) [2011]

(no consent if marketed in breach of licence)

Page 21: QM Certificate in IP: Competition Law Lecture 9: Free movement and intellectual property

Horizontal effect of free movement rules?

• Fra.bo SpA v Deutsche Vereinigung des Gas- und Wasserfaches eV (DVGW) - Technisch-Wissenschaftlicher Verein (C-171/11) [2013] CMLR 38

• certification bodies

Page 22: QM Certificate in IP: Competition Law Lecture 9: Free movement and intellectual property

International Exhaustion

EMI v CBSSilhouette Davidoff OracleSony v NuplayerLaserdisken ApS v Kulturministeriet L'Oreal Norge AS v Per Aarskog AS (EFTA)

Page 23: QM Certificate in IP: Competition Law Lecture 9: Free movement and intellectual property

Border measures (imports from 3rd countries) & transit

• Mastercigars [2007]  

Consignments in transit, physically present in EU but destined for 3rd country & not “released for circulation”, not regarded as undermining right of first sale in the EU

• Class International v Colgate-Palmolive• Philips/Nokia C-446/09 and C-495/09• Border measures Reg (EU) No 608/2013

eff 1 Jan 2014

Page 24: QM Certificate in IP: Competition Law Lecture 9: Free movement and intellectual property

Complementary roles of competition law and free movement• Commission's 2012 report on competition

– “Private barriers to trade and competition would risk replacing the public barriers to free movement that have been painstakingly dismantled. Subsidy races would risk wasting precious budgetary resources, distorting competition between companies established in different Member States”

Commission press release IP/13/472, May 28, 2013, [2013] EU Focus 8