Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/29 |

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 9 June 2020 — Impexeco NV v Novartis AG

(Case C-253/20)

(2020/C 297/39)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Impexeco NV

Respondent: Novartis AG

Questions referred

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | Must Articles 34 to 36 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that, where a branded medicine (reference medicine) and a generic medicine have been put on the market in the EEA by economically linked undertakings, a trade mark proprietor’s opposition to the further commercialisation of the generic medicine by a parallel importer after the repackaging of that generic medicine by the affixing to it of the trade mark of the branded medicine (reference medicine) in the country of importation may lead to an artificial partitioning of the markets of the Member States? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 2. | If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, must the trade mark proprietor’s opposition to that rebranding be assessed by reference to the BMS conditions? |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 3. | Is it relevant to the answer to those questions that the generic medicine and the branded medicine (reference medicine) are identical or have the same therapeutic effect as referred to in Article 3(2) of the Koninklijk besluit van 19 april 2001 inzake parallelinvoer (Royal Decree of 19 April 2001 on parallel imports)? |

---

[Top](#document1)