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

The taste of cheese cannot be protected by copyright! What about fragrances of perfume?
22/11/2018

The Court of justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) ruled on 13 November 2018 in the case C-310/17 t...

Read more

Violer les termes de la licence engendre-t-il toujours une contrefaçon ?
18/11/2018

La Cour d’appel de Paris vient de poser une question préjudicielle potentiellement explosive à la CJUE...

Read more

Use of #AD, #SPON or #PROM in social media? Here is the new Belgian landscape for influencers
16/10/2018

On 8 October 2018, the Belgian Advertising Council published Guidelines for online influencers (“Influencer Guidelin...

Read more

De impact van Brexit op intellectuele eigendomsrechten
10/10/2018

De Brexitdatum komt elke dag een beetje dichterbij. Het VK zal de EU verlaten op 29 maart 2019. Eén van de vragen d...

Read more

Lastest articles by Mr. Tanguy de Haan

CJEU doesn't like the taste of copyright
14/11/2018

Today, the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") decided that the taste of a food product is not ...

Read more

New Protection for Trade Secrets
26/09/2018

On 14 August, the Act of 30 July 2018 on the protection of trade secrets was published in the Belgian State Gazette, final...

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

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

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