Voor eens en altijd
HvJ EG, 6 april 2006, opinie AG Sharpston, in zaak C-348/04. Boehringer Ingelheim KG c.s. tegen Swingward Ltd en Boehringer Ingelheim KG c.s. tegen Dowelhurst Ltd.
In haar uitgebreide conclusie probeert AG Sharpston voor eens en altijd duidelijkheid te scheppen over de regels voor ompakken en stickeren bij de parallelimport van geneesmiddelen, in de hoop dat het Hof van Justitie dan in het vervolg verschoond zal blijven van verzoeken tot nadere uitleg: "I would then hope that national courts will play their part robustly in applying the principles to the facts before them without further requests to fine-tune the principles. Every judge knows that ingenious lawyers can always find a reason why a given proposition does or does not apply to their client’s situation. It should not however in my view be for the Court of Justice to adjudicate on such detail for evermore".
De zaak is een vervolg op de eerdere zaak Boehringer I (zaak C-143/00 [2002]) en betreft de parallel import van farmaceutische producten (inhalers en pillen). Het Engelse Court of Appeal heeft een aantal vragen voorgelegd over de juiste uitleg van de eerdere ompakkingsjurisprudentie van het Hof van Justitie, onder meer met betrekking tot de noodzaak tot ompakking ('reboxing'), de bewijslast ten aanzien van de verschillende voorwaarden voor ompakking zoals neergelegd in het arrest Bristol-Myers Squibb uit 1996 (gevoegde zaken C-427/93, C-429/93 en C-436/93), de toepasselijkheid van de voorwaarden uit dit arrest op gestickerde producten ('overstickered products') en de gevolgen van het niet waarschuwen van de merkhouder (failing to give notice).
De AG adviseert het Hof van Justitie om de voorgelegde vragen als volgt te beantwoorden:
- The five conditions set out in Bristol-Myers Squibb (‘the BMS conditions’) do not apply where a parallel importer markets in one Member State a pharmaceutical product imported from another Member State in its original internal and external packaging to which the parallel importer has applied an additional external label printed in the language of the Member State of importation.
– The requirement that repackaging be necessary (the first BMS condition) applies merely to the fact of reboxing and does not extend to the precise manner and style thereof.
– The requirement that the presentation of the repackaged product be not such as to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark or its owner (the fourth BMS condition) is not limited to defective, poor quality or untidy packaging: the issue is whether there is a serious risk that the reputation of the trade mark will be damaged.
– Both inappropriate presentation of the trade mark and incorrect suggestion of a commercial link are capable in principle of damaging the trade mark’s reputation. Whether particular forms of repackaging cause such damage and whether the damage is sufficiently serious to amount to a ‘legitimate reason’ within the meaning of Article 7(2) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks is a question of fact for the national court.
– In circumstances where the importer has failed to give notice but has complied with the other BMS conditions, he infringes by every subsequent importation. It is for the national court to determine the appropriate sanction, which should be effective and dissuasive. It should also be proportionate and therefore should not be equal to the sanction that would apply if the other BMS conditions had also been breached.
– The parallel importer bears the burden of proving compliance with the first, second, third and fifth BMS conditions. The trade mark owner bears the burden of proving serious risk of damage to the reputation of the trade mark or himself (the fourth BMS condition)."
Lees de conclusie hier (Geen Nederlandse tekst beschikbaar).
