Peak Holding AB v Axolin-Elinor AB (formerly Handelskompaniet Factory Outlet i Löddeköpinge AB).
Date: 2004-11-30
30. Articles 5 to 7 of the Directive effect a complete harmonisation of the rules relating to the rights conferred by a trade mark and accordingly define the rights of proprietors of trade marks in the Community (Case C-355/96 Silhouette International Schmied  [1998] ECR I-4799, paragraphs 25 and 29, and Joined Cases C-414/99 to C-416/99 Zino Davidoff and Levi Strauss  [2001] ECR I-8691, paragraph 39).
31. The expression ‘put on the market’ in the EEA used in Article 7(1) of the Directive constitutes a decisive factor in the extinction of the exclusive right of the proprietor of the trade mark laid down in Article 5 of that directive (see Case C-244/00 Van Doren + Q  [2003] ECR I-3051, paragraph 34).
32. It must therefore be given a uniform interpretation in the Community legal order (see, by analogy, Zino Davidoff and Levi Strauss , paragraphs 41 to 43).
34. Article 5 of the Directive confers on the trade mark proprietor exclusive rights which entitle him inter alia to prevent any third party from importing goods bearing the mark, offering the goods, or putting them on the market or stocking them for these purposes. Article 7(1) contains an exception to that rule, in that it provides that the trade mark proprietor’s rights are exhausted where the goods have been put on the market in the EEA by him or with his consent (see Zino Davidoff and Levi Strauss , paragraph 40, and Van Doren + Q , paragraph 33).
35. The Court has held that the Directive is intended in particular to ensure that the proprietor has the exclusive right to use the trade mark for the purpose of putting the goods bearing it on the market for the first time (see, inter alia, Joined Cases C-427/93, C-429/93 and C-436/93 Bristol‑Myers Squibb and Others  [1996] ECR I-3457, paragraphs 31, 40 and 44).
36. It has also held that, by specifying that the placing of goods on the market outside the EEA does not exhaust the proprietor’s right to oppose the importation of those goods without his consent, the Community legislature thus allowed the proprietor of the trade mark to control the initial marketing in the EEA of goods bearing the mark (see Case C-173/98 Sebago and Maison Dubois  [1999] ECR I-4103, paragraph 21, Zino Davidoff and Levi Strauss , paragraph 33, and Van Doren + Q , paragraph 26).
37. It has further stated that Article 7(1) of the Directive is intended to make possible the further marketing of an individual item of a product bearing a trade mark without the proprietor of the trade mark being able to oppose that (see Case C-63/97 BMW  [1999] ECR I-905, paragraph 57, and Sebago and Maison Dubois , paragraph 20).
38. It has held, finally, that for a trade mark to be able to fulfil its essential role in the system of undistorted competition which the EC Treaty seeks to establish, it must offer a guarantee that all the goods or services bearing it have been manufactured or supplied under the control of a single undertaking which is responsible for their quality (see, inter alia, Case C-299/99 Philips  [2002] ECR I-5475, paragraph 30).
40. A sale which allows the proprietor to realise the economic value of his trade mark exhausts the exclusive rights conferred by the Directive, more particularly the right to prohibit the acquiring third party from reselling the goods.