Debranding Before Import Not Allowed
06/08/2018

 

In a recent decision, Mitsubishi v Duma Forklifts and G.S. International (C-129/17), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) confirmed that ‘debranding’ products before importing them into the EEA, without the trade mark proprietor’s consent, is not allowed.

Facts

The facts of the case can be summarized as follows.

Two Belgian companies, Duma and GSI, purchase MITSUBISHI forklifts outside the European Economic Area (EEA), which they import into the EEA under a customs warehousing procedure. Before doing so, however, they remove from the goods all MITSUBISHI trade marks (‘debranding’), make the necessary modifications to render the goods compliant with EU standards, and replace the identification plates and serial numbers with their own signs. Afterwards, the modified goods are imported into and marketed in the EEA.

According to Duma and GSI, Mitsubishi cannot rely on its trade mark rights in relation to the debranded products, as the MITSUBISHI trade mark is no longer affixed to them. Mitsubishi, however, which did not consent to the modification and import of its goods into the EEA, argued that its trade mark rights are adversely affected and started proceedings in Brussels against the two companies. The Brussels Court of Appeal requested a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

Judgment

The CJEU sided with Mitsubishi and ruled that a trade mark proprietor has the right to oppose the removal by third parties of its trade marks and their replacement with other marks, even if the products formed the object of a customs warehousing procedure, before being imported into and marketed in the EEA.

Trade mark proprietors indeed have the right to control the initial marketing in the EEA of goods bearing their trade marks. If the goods are debranded without their consent, they are unable to control the initial marketing, which adversely affects the trade mark's functions.

The fact that the trade mark proprietor’s goods are placed on the market before the proprietor is able to do so while using his trade mark, with the result that consumers become familiar with the goods before associating them with the trade mark, is likely to substantially impede use of the trade mark by the proprietor to acquire a reputation likely to attract and retain consumers or promote sales or as an instrument of commercial strategy.

The CJEU held that Duma and GSI’s aim was to circumvent the proprietor’s right to prohibit the import of its branded products without its consent, which is contrary to the objective of ensuring undistorted competition.

According to the CJEU, it does not matter that debranding took place when the goods were still under the customs warehousing procedure, since the operation was carried out for the purpose of importing the goods into and placing them on the market in the EEA.

Related : NautaDutilh ( Mr. Tanguy de Haan ,  Mr. Hannes Abraham )

[+ http://www.nautadutilh.com]

Mr. Tanguy de Haan Mr. Tanguy de Haan
Partner
tanguy.dehaan@nautadutilh.com
Mr. Hannes Abraham Mr. Hannes Abraham
Associate
hannes.abraham@nautadutilh.com

Click here to see the ad(s)
All articles Intellectual property law

Lastest articles Intellectual property law

La reprise d’une photo n’est pas la même chose qu’un lien vers cette photo
13/08/2018

La mise en ligne sur un site Internet d’une photographie librement accessible sur un autre site Internet avec l&rsqu...

Read more

EU Trade Marks Should Be Distinctive Throughout the EU, Not Just a Significant Part Thereof
01/08/2018

In its recent Nestlé v Mondelez decision (C-84/17P, C-85/17P and C-95/17P), the Court of Justice of the European Un...

Read more

Goed nieuws voor de houders van een Beneluxmerk. Vanaf 1 juni 2018 krijgt u meer rechten en dit z...
18/07/2018

Het Beneluxverdrag inzake de intellectuele eigendom ondergaat enkele ingrijpende wijzigingenwijzigingen. Een van de belang...

Read more

Trade Secrets: Belgium on its way to compliance
10/07/2018

Short refresher: on 8 June 2016, the European legislator adopted a new Trade Secrets Directive. Members States were suppos...

Read more

Lastest articles by Mr. Tanguy de Haan

EU Trade Marks Should Be Distinctive Throughout the EU, Not Just a Significant Part Thereof
01/08/2018

In its recent Nestlé v Mondelez decision (C-84/17P, C-85/17P and C-95/17P), the Court of Justice of the European Un...

Read more

Crocs killed its own design through public disclosure
20/03/2018

The General Court of the EU confirmed the cancellation of the registration for the famous design of Crocs clogs on the gro...

Read more

Bill to Align Belgian Patent Law to the UPC Agreement
26/12/2017

Although Brexit has called into question the future of the unitary patent and the Unified Patent Court, the Belgian legisl...

Read more

CJEU Upholds Prohibition on the Sale of Luxury Goods via Branded Third-party Internet Platforms
07/12/2017

The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) has just ruled, in the context of a selective distribution system for luxury goods, ...

Read more

Lastest articles by Mr. Hannes Abraham

EU Trade Marks Should Be Distinctive Throughout the EU, Not Just a Significant Part Thereof
01/08/2018

In its recent Nestlé v Mondelez decision (C-84/17P, C-85/17P and C-95/17P), the Court of Justice of the European Un...

Read more

Beware of Tenants Selling Counterfeit Goods!
20/07/2016

In a recent decision, Tommy Hilfiger et al. v Delta Center (C-494/15), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) o...

Read more

LexGO Network