No C 310/22 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 11. 81 
Opinion on the proposal (or a first Council Directive to approximate the laws of the Member 
States relating to trade marks and the proposal for a Council Regulation on Community trade 
marks 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official journal of the European 
Communities No C 351 of 31 December 1980, pages 1 and 5. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 5 December 1980 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Economic and 
Social Committee in accordance with Article 100 and 235 of the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community. 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
190th plenary session held in Brussels on 23 and 24 September 1981. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community, and in particular Articles 100 and 
235 thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council of the 
European Communities on 5 December 1980 for an 
opinion on the following documents: proposal for a first 
Council Directive to approximate the laws of the Member 
States relating to trade marks and the proposal for a 
Council Regulation on Community trade marks, 
Having regard to the decision taken by the Committee's 
Bureau on 9 December 1980 instructing the Section tor 
Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services to draw up an 
opinion and report on this matter, 
Having regard to the report submitted by the Rapporteur, 
Mr Broicher, 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by the Section for 
Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services at its 76th 
meeting held on 2 September 1981, 
Having regard to the discussions at its 190th plenary 
session held on 23 and 24 September 1981 (meeting of 
23 September), 
Whereas the establishment of a Community-wide market 
requires the unimpeded movement of goods and services 
and the creation of a Community trade mark law will be 
very useful for this; Whereas a trade mark system must be set up in the 
Community which allows companies to obtain, under a 
single procedure, Community trade marks enjoying 
uniform protection and valid throughout the 
Community, 
Whereas the harmonization of national trade mark law 
and the introduction of a Community trade mark must 
not prejudice the interests of the proprietors of national 
marks; 
Whereas, besides the self-evident approximation of the 
trade mark laws ot the Member States, a Regulation 
pursuant to Article 235 of the EEC Treaty is the most 
appropriate way of achieving the Treaty objective of an 
unimpeded trade in marked goods, 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
by 75 votes to eight with 22 abstentions: 
1. General comments 
1. The Economic and Social Committee welcomes the 
Commission's intention of creating, in stages, trading 
conditions for marked goods in the Community similar to 
those of a national market. The aim of the proposed 
Directive is to align those components of national trade 
mark law which are particularly relevant to free trade 
between the Member States. In Chapter 2 the Committee 
proposes some amendments to this Directive. 
30. 11. 81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 310/23 
The Regulation submitted concurrently is intended to 
create a Community trade mark law - without repealing 
national law - which will allow companies to register 
Community trade marks at a Community trade marks 
office. 
2. The Committee shares the view that the alignment 
of national laws pursuant to Article 100 of the EEC 
Treaty will go only a small part of the way to creating a 
Community-wide market for marked goods. The 
conditions are therefore fulfilled for additional action by 
the Community in the form of a Regulation under 
Article 235 of the EEC Treaty. The powers derived from 
Article 235 include the power to set up a trade marks 
office, which will be a Community body, and to provide 
appropriate uniform legal protection for the parties 
concerned. The Regulation proposed by the Commission 
avoids the creation of a new international institution and 
thus the difficulties which experience has shown to be 
involved in the ratification of international treaties 
between many States. The choice of Article 235 as the 
legal basis is therefore fully endorsed by the ESC. 
3. In view of the importance of Community trade 
marks for the attainment of conditions consistent with an 
internal market, the Committee considers it essential that 
the substantive rules, procedure and costs attaching to the 
rights in these Community marks be such that they are 
'accepted' by commerce and industry, i.e. that companies 
are prepared in large measure to register Community 
instead of national marks. To fulfil this condition the 
Committee believes - as set out in Chapter 3 of this 
opinion - that the draft Regulation requires revision at 
several points. 
2. Specific comments on the proposed Directive 
1. The Committee has considerable misgivings about 
the proposed exclusion (third recital, page 9, last 
paragraph) of the application of other national 
provisions, such as rules against unfair competition. It 
must be possible to act against a trade mark proprietor 
who infringes competition laws and to apply the penalties 
of national law to trade mark pirates. If the Commission 
merely wishes to stop other national laws being used to 
get round the alignment Directive, then it should say so 
clearly. 
2. The Committee would like Article 2(3) reviewed to 
see whether there is any justification for using an 
exceptional case (sealing off by means of different marks) 
as a reason for a general ban (ban on different marks), or whether it would not be better to delete this provision. If it 
was wished to avoid complete deletion, Article 2 (3) 
could be replaced by a provision, referring to the EEC 
Treaty, to the effect that objectively unjustified mark 
differentiation may not be used to seal off national 
markets. 
2.1. The Committee also believes that different marks 
must not be improperly used for the purpose of cutting off 
national markets. The Committee feels however that the 
legal procedures for the prevention of such abuse 
contained in Articles 30 ff. and 85 ff. of the EEC Treaty 
are adequate. On the other hand, there are all kinds of 
legitimate marketing arguments for using different 
marks, including the need to take account of language 
differences and established trade mark practices. 
2.2. The legal consequences of the acquisition of a 
mark (following a take-over for example) which is 
already in use in another Member State are also unclear. 
The proposed arrangements involve the risk of losing the 
mark rights which are to be taken over or of relinquishing 
one's own mark if the firms involved in the take-over are 
engaged in the same sector, as is generally the case. The 
Committee regards such legal consequences as 
unacceptable. 
2.3. - There is finally the risk of deceiving the consumer 
if well-known marks which firms were forced to 
relinquish were subsequently acquired and used by their 
competitors. 
3. The Committee proposes deleting Article 2 (4). 
There are fundamental objections to the invalidation of 
national marks which were registered before the entry 
into force of the Directive and which fail to meet the 
criteria of the Directive, even though they complied at 
their time of registration with current national law. In the 
Section's view such a rule would be tantamount to 
expropriation without compensation, and there are no 
overriding grounds for this. 
4. The wording of Article 3 is imprecise in certain 
respects and gives rise to misgivings. 
4.1. A danger of confusion is not required for the use 
of an identical mark to be prohibited. The wording 
should be made clearer here. 
4.2. As far as similar signs are concerned, it is in the 
interests of all economic operators to focus on the 
likelihood of confusion in the course of trade. The 
Committee therefore proposes that the word serious be 
deleted. 
No C 310/24 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 11. 81 
The Directive should not create the impression that there 
are cases where the likelihood of confusion is immaterial. 
Economic operators who have no specialist knowledge, 
and particularly consumers, are entitled to be protected 
against any likelihood of confusion. The same applies to 
the word 'serious' in Articles 8 and 9. The wording of the 
preamble (page 10, fourth paragraph) would also have to 
be adjusted. 
5. In line with Article 8 (1) (b) of the Regulation, 
Article 3 should specify that signs resembling well-known 
marks may not be used for dissimilar goods either. 
6. The Committee recommends expressly citing the 
following two cases in Article 6 (2) (a) as examples of 
'legitimate grounds' for opposing importation: 
(a) where the marked goods to be imported into the 
Community differ in quality from goods which are 
marketed in the Community under the same 
mark; 
(b) where the non-member country bans the import of 
comparable goods from the Community. 
7. As regards Article 7, the Committee would refer to 
its comments on Article 21 of the draft Regulation 
(licensing). 
8. For Article 10 the Committee feels it more 
appropriate that rights should lapse only in the Member 
State(s) where a later mark has been used with the 
acquiescence of the proprietor. 
9. With regard to Article 13, the Committee feels that 
the significant time and cost involved in producing a 
declaration of use might well be disproportionate to the 
purpose of the provision, namely to force proprietors to 
examine the use made of their trade marks and 
voluntarily jettison unused marks (or at least reduce the 
list of goods) on expiry of the period of protection. 
3. Specific comments on the proposed Regulation 
1. With regard to Articles 7 and 8 of the Regulation, 
the Committee would refer to its comments on Article 3 
of the Directive. The Committee would also refer to 
Article 6 of the Paris Convention on Industrial Property 
which empowers trade mark proprietors to request that 
trade marks registered by their representative without 
their permission be transferred to them (the proprietors). The Committee proposes that this provision be 
incorporated in the legislation on Community trade 
marks. 
1.1. In the Committee's view it should be stated 
expressly that the proprietor of a national or Community 
mark for which an application has been filed may oppose 
the registration of a later Community trade mark. This is 
indeed clear from the explanatory memorandum to 
Article 7 of the Regulation but, to ensure certainty in legal 
relations, it should be included in the text of the 
Regulation. 
1.2. The Committee proposed that well-known 
marks be protected if they are recognized as such in a 
fairly large part of the Community. The requirement laid 
down in Article 8 (1) (b), i.e. that they be of wide repute 
throughout the Community, seems too strict since as a 
rule it is practically impossible to prove compliance with 
this condition. 
2. With regard to Article 11, the Section would begin 
by referring to its comments on Article 6 of the 
Directive. 
It is proposed that the second clause of Article 11 (2) (c) 
be deleted: 
It merely repeats the Court of Justice decision on the 
marketing of medicinal products. As the Economic and 
Social Committee has already argued, the purpose of a 
Directive or Regulation cannot be to uphold a specific 
Court of Justice decision. A provision dealing with a 
specific case on a particular market has no place in general 
trade marks law. 
Abuses designed to partition off a market illegally are 
banned under the EEC Treaty rules on free trade and 
Community rules on competition and, as the Court of 
Justice ruling shows, can be prevented. 
3. The fact that Article 12 refers only to national civil 
law means that Community marks will not be protected 
by criminal law and that their protection will therefore be 
weaker in some Member States than for national marks. 
This should be reconsidered in view of the need to make 
the Community mark an attractive proposition. 
4. The Committee considers that Article 21 needs 
amplifying considerably. 
4.1. Where the licence is confined to a specific area, 
manufacture of a marked product by the licensee outside 
30. 11. 81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 310/25 
the licence area is an infringement of trade mark laws and 
must therefore fall within paragraph (2), provided the 
ban does not conflict with the general competition rules of 
the EEC Treaty. At the very least, the words 'in 
particular' should be added after 'unless'. 
4.2. The mark proprietor cannot be compelled to 
ensure that the licensee manufactures goods of the same 
quality. In many cases national laws and different 
production and consumption factors necessitate 
differences in the product. 
As licensor the manufacturer can therefore only be 
obliged to ensure that the production under licence 
complies with his instructions concerning the quality of 
the goods. 
4.3. The Committee recommends that paragraph (4) 
of Article 21 be deleted. The number and diversity of the 
licences would lead to substantial administrative costs, 
without there being any adequate grounds for such 
expenditure. 
5. Regarding Article 25, the Committee feels that 
filing should not be dependent upon receipt of the 
minimum fees by the Office. It would be better if the 
Office could set a deadline and the consequences of 
default operate only after this had expired. The present 
rule could be unfair on the applicant on account of the 
difficulties involved in calculating the fees and 
transferring the money. 
6. Regarding Article 37, the Committee would refer to 
its comments on Article 13 of the Directive. 
7. To ensure certainty in legal relations, Article 40 
should be amended to the effect that revocation shall be 
effective from the moment the decision is taken. 
8. It is urged that the parties also be allowed to 
participate in the procedure described in Article 55, or at 
least be allowed to submit statements. 
9. Regarding Article 6 8, the Committee proposes th at 
monthly publication of the Bulletin be specified. 
10. The Committee urges that Article 69 be worded in 
such a way as to ensure the adoption of the international 
classification of the Nice Agreement. 11. In connection with Article 74 the Committee 
wonders whether, for the legal protection of the 
proprietor of a Community mark, it is enough that Article 
47 (1) and Article 79 only provide for the possibility of 
staying proceedings (action may be stayed) before the 
Office or a national court and that under Article 46 (4) 
and Article 78 (2) the crucial decision of the Office or 
national court as to the validity or invalidity of a mark 
will be the one which happens to be taken first. 
Consideration could therefore be given to allowing 
precedence to the decision of the Office. A mandatory 
stay of proceedings by the national court would, 
however, often mean a substantial, barely tolerable, 
delay in the proceedings. 
The issue of different decisions of national courts in 
infringement proceedings or counter-claims for the 
revocation of trademarks (Article 74 (2)) is only covered 
by the draft Regulation in so far as a ruling against a mark 
applies throughout the Community. Under this proposal 
it should of course be irrelevant whether other national 
courts have ruled against a mark. 
Since the Commission has regrettably decided to dispense 
with a Community court of appeal, consideration could 
therefore be given to making any decision in an action 
pursuant to paragraph (2), brought before the Court of 
the Member State in which the infringement was 
committed, applicable only in the territory of the Member 
State. In such a case this court would anyway only be 
competent to deal with infringements committed in that 
Member State. 
12. The Committee assumes that there will be a 
reference in Article 76 to national provisions concerning 
temporary measures for legal protection (e.g. 
interlocutary injunction). 
13. The Committee considers Article 81 particularly 
important for whether the Community trade mark is 
accepted by trade and industry. 
13.1. The basic ban on double protection must apply 
only to identical marks and identical products and 
services. By extending it to similar marks the present rule 
ensures that firms which have several similar marks for a 
product will lose rights if they register a Community 
mark. This would certainly dissuade many such firms 
from registering Community marks. 
13.2. It must be ensured that the suspended national 
mark is maintained as the basic mark for international 
registration in accordance with the Madrid Agreement on 
No C 310/26 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 11. 81 
trade marks or - in so far as necessary - as the 
precondition for the acquisition of a national mark in 
non-member countries. 
13.3. Clarification is still needed as to how licensing 
agreements or writs of execution relating to a suspended 
national mark are to be dealt with. 
14. The Committee considers that in Article 82 it will 
be necessary, in line with the explanatory memorandum, 
to substitute the words scope of protection for the word 
use. Otherwise the impression could be created that the 
Regulation is trying to prevent actions under competition law and passing-off actions under English law being 
brought against the unfair use of the Community 
mark. 
15. Regarding Article 103, the Committee 
acknowledges that the use of only one official language 
could help to boost the Office's efficiency and 
significantly reduce its costs. In this case however, it 
would have to be ensured that all applications in the 
national language for the purpose of establishing rights or 
complying with legal deadlines are regarded as valid from 
the date of receipt. A translation into the language of the 
Office could then be submitted within a period stipulated 
by the Office. 
Done at Brussels, 23 September 1981. 
The Chairman 
of the 
Economic and Social Committee 
Tomas ROSEINGRAVE 
ANNEX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
Rejected amendments 
The following amendments, tabled in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, were rejected during the 
debate: 
Page 22 
Replace the last four recitals of the preamble by the following: 
'Whereas there will continue to be a great need for national trade marks in the Member States, 
regardless of whether a Community trade mark scheme is introduced; 
Whereas the various rulings delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Communities 
determining the legal status of national trade marks make it unnecessary, under the EEC Treaty, to 
undermine such trade marks further; 
Whereas some measure of approximation between the trade mark laws of the Member States and the 
introduction of a Community trade mark scheme can be considered desirable, provided that national 
trade marks do not suffer; 
Whereas the most appropriate and expedient instrument for introducing a Community trade mark 
scheme is a Convention since the EEC Treaty does not provide sufficient foundation for either the form 
or substance of the provisions proposed by the Commission/ 
Reason 
See reasons indicated for the proposed amendments to pages 22 and 23. 
Result of the vote 
For: 2, against: majority, abstentions: 6. 
30. 11. 81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 310/27 
Pages 22 and 23 
Replace points 1, 2 and 3 by the following: 
'1. The Section agrees with the Commission that a Community trade mark scheme cannot be 
substituted for national trade marks without causing disproportionate difficulty and expense. Firstly, 
most firms - and especially small and medium-sized businesses - need to protect their trade marks in 
only one Member State and would find it very hard to cope if such protection were only available on a 
Community, as opposed to regional or national, basis. Further, for linguistic reasons, it is often not 
expedient to market a product under the same trade mark in all language zones of the 
Community. 
2. As the Court of Justice has laid down principles for the application of trade mark laws and 
delivered judgments regarding the implementation of such legislation in relation to the competition 
rules embodied in the EEC Treaty, the Section takes the view that retention of national trade marks 
would only entail the trade restrictions which are absolutely necessary for such protection to operate 
satisfactorily. The EEC Treaty specifically authorizes such restrictions on trade despite the fact that 
they sometimes result in products having to be marketed under different trade marks depending on the 
Member State. This does not prevent the actual products moving freely within the Community. 
3. Since national trade marks will remain important, the protection provided by national systems 
must not be reduced. In this connection, the Section fears that the proposed Regulation, if implemented 
as it stands, would impinge on national protection in a number of ways. For instance; 
— Only earlier, registered or "well-known" national trade marks can be invoked for the purpose of 
opposing registration (Article 7, paragraph 2); 
— National trade marks can only give grounds for refusing registration where there is a 'serious 
likelihood' of confusion (Article 7, paragraph 1); 
— The proprietor of a national trade mark must keep himself informed by reading the Community 
Trade Mark Bulletin and must protect his national trade mark by entering opposition to 
registration of the Community trade mark on his own initiative (Article 7, paragraph 4, and 
Article 34); 
— The mandatory opposition fee is not refunded even when the matter is decided in his favour 
(Article 34, paragraph 2); 
— The opposing party normally has to pay his own costs even when the matter is decided in his favour 
(Article 64); 
— A judgment by the Community Trade Mark Office rejecting an opposition application is binding on 
the national courts in any further case concerning infringement of the Community trade mark 
(Article 78, paragraph 2); 
— The stipulation that an application for declaration of invalidity shall be rejected in the event of 
acquiescence in the use of a Community trade mark for a period of over three years presumably also 
applies in the case of acquiescence in its use in other Member States (Article 44, paragraph 1); 
— Earlier national trade marks which are not restricted to a particular locality cannot be actively 
protected by bringing a claim for revocation before the national courts; application for declaration 
of invalidity must be made to the Community authorities (as can be inferred from Articles 45 
and 80). 
However, despite the above comments, the Section feels that it may be useful to introduce a 
Community trade mark scheme enabling firms to complete a single procedure for registering trade 
marks enjoying uniform protection and with legal effect throughout the Community, provided that 
national trade mark protection continues to operate without being undermined. A legal facility of this 
kind can assist firms with activities necessitating Community scale trade mark protection. 
A Community trade mark could save these firms some of the costs they would otherwise have incurred 
in connection with registering and enforcing their trade marks. Further, the establishment of a common 
scheme could promote Community integration since firms which succeed in registering Community 
trade marks and market their products under these names in all or part of the common market, for this 
No C 310/28 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 11.81 
reason alone will be keen supporters. The Section also shares the view that introduction of a 
Community trade mark should be accompanied by approximation of national trade mark rules. 
4. The proposed Regulation provides for the delegation of extensive powers to the Community 
Trade Mark office, including powers that the EEC Treaty assigns to the Commission and the Court of 
Justice. At the same time, as mentioned above, the Section considers the restrictions on trade inherent in 
national trade mark rights to be specifically authorized by the EEC Treaty. Accordingly, Article 235 of 
the Treaty does not seem to provide sufficient foundation for a Regulation introducing a Community 
trade mark scheme. In the Section's view, the most reliable and appropriate instrument for this purpose 
is a Convention, among other reasons because of the serious repercussions for the firms concerned in 
the event of a Community trade mark Regulation being declared invalid after operating for some 
time.' 
Reasons 
on point 1 
By no means all small and medium-sized businesses can, or wish to, operate on an international scale. Yet 
these very businesses are an important part of Community industry. Many of them only need to ensure 
regional or national trade mark protection but they must be able to count on such protection being 
effective. 
The restrictions which national trade marks previously imposed on free movement of goods within the 
Community have, in most cases of any magnitude or economic importance, been ended as a result of the 
Court of Justice's rulings. This is particularly true of 'parallel-imports'. A firm which is the proprietor of 
identical trade marks in different EEC countries can no longer use them for the purpose of carving up the 
common market. This also applies where several businesses own identical trade marks with common 
origins. Any further encroachments on protection ot national trade marks in this sphere would be an 
infringement of Article 36 of the Treaty, which authorizes certain restrictions on trady by trade marks 
('protection of industrial and commercial property') where such restrictions are a sine qua non for the 
effective operation of national trade mark protection. 
Even large businesses (and many small and medium-sized export firms) often need to market a single 
product under different trade marks in the various Member States and therefore find that national trade 
mark protection is to their advantage (provided that it is effective). In many cases, a trade mark which is a 
commercial hit in one country may, for language reasons, make no impact on other markets. Where, for 
instance, a firm has found four effective names, each aimed at a different Member State, for one of its 
products, it will be required, in the event of national trade mark systems being scrapped or undermined, to 
register four different Community trade marks for the same product, even if none of these marks is to be 
used in more than one country. Either this will prove very expensive fur the firm concerned or it will be 
forced to choose one trade mark to encompass the entire Community, ev< n if this trade mark is not a top or 
even second rate sales success but only 'third best'. 
According to estimates, over 80 % of the 1-8 million trade marks registered in the Community are 
currently registered in only one Member State, i.e. fewer than 20 % of their proprietors have felt the need to 
register the same trade mark in two or more Member States. This figure gives some Idea of the practical 
implications of the matter. 
on point 2 
Should national trade marks be done away with - as is clearly the Commission's long-term objective (see 
the fourth recital of the proposed Regulation) - all these businesses would have to obtain a Community 
trade mark in order to obtain any protection whatsoever, despite the far greater risk of objections to 
registration of a trade mark spanning the entire common market than they would face in the case of a 
purely national trade mark. This would involve many small and medium-sized businesses in difficulty and 
expense out of all proportion to their needs, viz. to use the trade mark in one Member State only. In 
30. 11. 81 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 310/29 
addition, businesses in other Member States would lodge objections against such Community trade marks 
so as to protect their own rights, thereby incurring unnecessary costs. 
The Commission proposal therefore has no firm foundation in the Treaty rules on free movement of goods. 
Even in cases where restrictions on trade are unavoidable for the effective operation of national trade mark 
protection, it cannot reasonably be claimed that they are a major impediment to free movement of goods. 
This applies to cases where, for instance, two trade marks operating in different Member States are not 
common in origin but can temporarily and unintentionally give rise to confusion, with the result that 
neither product may be imported into the other country. Even in such cases, goods can circulate freely 
within the Community though under another mark. 
on point 3 
The registration and public acceptance of Community trade marks can benefit export firms in various 
ways, and in particular large multinational concerns (including those who base their headquarters outside 
the Community) with a substantial number of trade marks. However, it is only fair that those who benefit 
should also be required to pay the bulk of the costs involved, whereas the Commission proposal 
undermines national trade marks since their proprietors will have to go to a great deal of trouble and 
expense (see above) if they wish to retain an exclusive right to their trade mark in their home area. 
on point 4 
It has happened before that a common trade mark scheme, in operation for some time, has been declared 
invalid by the courts purely on the grounds that its form did not comply with common basic law. 
In 1870 the US Congress passed the first Federal trade mark law ('An Act to revise, consolidate and amend 
the statutes relating to patents and copyrights'). Then in 1879, in a number of trade mark cases, the US 
Supreme Court ruled that this Art did not comply with constitutional law. At one fell swoop over 8 000 
registered trade marks were cancelled. 
Congress then had to find a satisfactory constitutional basis for a Federal trade mark law; this law was 
passed in 1881 and upheld by the Supreme Court. 
Community firms can be spared the disastrous repercussions experienced by the US firms concerned in 
1879 if a Community trade mark scheme is adopted in the form of an 'appendix' to the EEC Treaty, i.e. as a 
Convention. 
Result of the vote 
For: 4, against: majority, abstentions: 10. 
Point 2 (page 23) 
Delete. 
Reasons 
The provisions laid down in Article 2 (3) of the Draft Directive regarding the use of different marks, i.e. a 
ban on the use of different marks for the same products in different Member States, unless there are 
legitimate grounds for such use, is fully in line with the objective of a common market. 
No C 310/30 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 11. 81 
The use of Article 30 (free trade) and Article 85 ff. (competition) of the EEC Treaty to prevent abuse is not 
an adequate way of ensuring that the common market operates, as it is meant to do, in the consumers 
interest too. 
If the harmonization of trade marks law means that the same product, from the same manufacturer, can be 
sold on the same common market under different marks, the consumer will be confused. It will also 
encourage the charging of different prices for the same product. 
The waiver also contained in Article 2 (3) is an adequate solution for any problems arising from the 
adoption of a ban on mark differentiation. This also applies in the case of language differences, which have 
to be allowed for. 
Result of the vote 
For: 21, against: 52, abstentions: 20. 
Point 6 (page 24) 
Replace by the following: 
'As regards Article 6, the Section takes the view that the rule on the exhaustion of the right to a trade 
mark (Article 6(1)) should be confined to products which have been marketed for the first time in the 
common market. Consequently Article 6 (2) (a) should be deleted.' 
Reasons 
The principle of the international exhaustion of the right to a mark is not universally recognized. To 
enshrine it in an EEC instrument would damage Community undertakings vis-a-vis their international 
competitors. 
The Commission in the explanatory memorandum states that it is irrelevant where the marked product is 
marketed for the first time. This is incorrect. 
At the most, the Community should negotiate this type of point with third countries when multilateral 
agreements are drawn up. 
Result of the vote 
For: 17, against: 34, abstentions: 40.