THE CUSTOMS TERRITORY REFERENCE SHOULD BE MADE FOR SUCH A DEFINITION TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 2 ( 2 ).
THIS SUBPARAGRAPH DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY INDICATION SUCH AS TO SUGGEST THAT IT SOLELY RELATES TO THE APPLICATION OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THAT ARTICLE . ON THE CONTRARY , AS THIS PROVISION IS TO BE FOUND AMONG THE FIRST ARTICLES WHICH STATE THE BASIC CONCEPTS FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE REGULATION EVERYTHING SUGGESTS THAT THE TERMS USED IN ARTICLE 3 ( 7 ) REFER TO ITS DEFINITION OF ' BUSINESS ASSOCIATION ' . FURTHERMORE , SUCH AN INTERPRETATION CORRESPONDS BOTH TO THE GENERAL OBJECTIVES OF THE REGULATION AND TO THOSE OF ARTICLE 3 , AS THE PROVISION IN ARTICLE 3 ( 7 ) ( B ) SEEKING TO INCLUDE THE CASE IN WHICH AN IMPORTER OF FOREIGN PRODUCTS SUBJECT TO A TRADE-MARK IMPORTS PRODUCTS INTO THE COMMUNITY WITHOUT A TRADE-MARK IN ORDER TO AFFIX OR HAVE AFFIXED TO THEM THE FOREIGN TRADE-MARK WHICH MAY BE REGISTERED IN A MEMBER STATE AFTER THE IMPORTATION AND SUBSEQUENTLY TO SELL THE GOODS AS PRODUCTS SUBJECT TO A TRADE-MARK .
THE INTENTION OF GIVING AS WIDE AN APPLICATION AS POSSIBLE TO THIS PROVISION OF CUSTOMS LAW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FACT THAT IN REGULATION NO 1788/69 THE COMMISSION LAID DOWN ADDITIONAL RULES IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE APPLICATION OF THIS PROVISION FROM GIVING RISE TO INJUSTICE .
8 THE REPLY TO BE GIVEN TO THE FIRST QUESTION IS THEREFORE THAT THE DEFINITION OF THE CONCEPT OF ' PERSONS ASSOCIATED IN BUSINESS ' SET OUT IN ARTICLE 2 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 803/68 OF THE COUNCIL IS ALSO VALID FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 3 ( 7 ) ( B ) OF THAT REGULATION .
9 SINCE THE SECOND QUESTION WHICH WAS ASKED IN CASE THE FIRST QUESTION SHOULD BE ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE HAS THEREFORE LOST ITS PURPOSE , THE ANSWER TO THE THIRD QUESTION SHOULD BE THAT AN ASSOCIATION SUCH AS THAT REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 2 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 803/68 IS CREATED BY A CONTRACT WHEREBY THE FOREIGN SUPPLIER OF A PRODUCT GRANTS TO THE COMMUNITY BUYER DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS WHICH ARE TERRITORIALLY DEFINED AGAINST PAYMENT OF ROYALTIES IN THE FORM OF A PERCENTAGE SHARE OF THE PROCEEDS OF SALES . IN FACT , AS IT ENTAILS PARTICIPATION BY THE SUPPLIER IN THE PROCEEDS OF THE MARKETING OF THE PRODUCTS IN QUESTION BY THE BUYER SUCH A CONTRACT CONSTITUTES PRECISELY THE KIND OF CONTRACT REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 2 ( 2 ).
IT IS WELL TO ADD THAT THE FACT , WHICH WAS REFERRED TO BY THE NATIONAL COURT THAT SUCH A CONTRACT IN ADDITION GRANTS TO THE BUYER THE RIGHT TO MANUFACTURE THE PRODUCT IN QUESTION HIMSELF ACCORDING TO THE PATENTED PROCEDURE FROM TWO PATENTED SUBSTANCES WHICH HE UNDERTAKES TO BUY FROM THE ABOVEMENTIONED FOREIGN SUPPLIER CANNOT QUALIFY THIS CONCLUSION IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THIS RIGHT DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO