Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2002:246
Date: 2002-04-23
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Full Court
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Measures having equivalent effect;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property;Approximation of laws;Quantitative restrictions
Concepts: Effects of a mark
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: United Kingdom

Summary of the Judgment 
Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/104 — Parallel importation, 
after repackaging and reaffixing of the trade mark, of pharmaceutical products into 
I - 3759 
SUMMARY — CASE C-143/00 
another Member State — Opposition by the trade mark owner — Permissibility — 
Condition — No artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States — 
Criteria of assessment — Trior notice to the trade mark owner — Scope of the duty 
(Council Directive 89/104, Art. 7(2)) 
Article 7(2) of First Council Directive 
89/104 relating to trade marks must be 
interpreted as meaning that a trade mark 
proprietor may rely on its trade mark rights 
in order to prevent a parallel importer from 
repackaging pharmaceutical products 
unless the exercise of those rights con­
tributes to artificial partitioning of the 
markets between Member States. Where a 
proprietor relies on its trade mark rights to 
prevent repackaging where that is necessary 
for the pharmaceutical products concerned 
to be marketed in the importing State, that 
contributes to such artificial partitioning. 
Replacement packaging of pharmaceutical 
products, rather than simply sticking labels 
on those packages, is objectively necessary 
if, without such repackaging, effective 
access to the market concerned, or to a 
substantial part of that market, must be 
considered to be hindered as the result of 
strong resistance from a significant propor­
tion of consumers to relabelled phar­
maceutical products. 
A parallel importer must, in any event, in 
order to be entitled to repackage trade-
marked pharmaceutical products, fulfil the 
requirement of prior notice. If the parallel 
importer does not satisfy that requirement, 
the trade mark proprietor may oppose the 
marketing of the repackaged pharmaceuti­
cal product. It is incumbent on the parallel 
importer himself to give notice to the trade 
mark proprietor of the intended repackag­
ing. In the event of dispute, it is for the 
national court to assess, in the light of all 
the relevant circumstances, whether the 
proprietor had a reasonable time to react 
to the intended repackaging. 
(see paras 35, 45, 54, 68, 
operative part 1-3) 
I - 3760