natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Hvorvidt ompakningen vil kunne berøre varernes oprindelige tilstand eller på anden måde skade varemærkets omdømme, er i det væsentlige et spørgsmål om de faktiske omstændigheder, som den nationale retsinstans skal fastslå i overensstemmelse med sine egne nationale bestemmelser vedrørende processuelle spørgsmål som f.eks. bevisbyrden, beviskravet og de bevismidler, der kan anvendes. Disse bestemmelser må ikke behandle krav, der hviler på fællesskabsretten, mindre fordelagtigt end krav i henhold til national ret og må ikke gøre det urimeligt vanskeligt at gennemføre rettigheder, der følger af fællesskabsretten.
Article 7(2) of Directive 89/104 must be interpreted as meaning that the trade mark owner may legitimately oppose the further marketing of a pharmaceutical product where the importer has repackaged the product and reaffixed the trade mark unless: it is established that reliance on trade mark rights by the owner in order to oppose the marketing of repackaged products under that trade mark would contribute to the artificial partitUming of the markets between Member States; such is the case, in particular, where the owner has put an identical pharmaceutical product on the market in several Member States in various forms of packaging, and the repackaging carried out by the importer is necessary in order to market the product in the Member Stale of importation, and is carried out in such conditions that the original condition of the product cannot be affected by it; that condition does not, however, imply that it must be established that the trade mark owner deliberately sought to partition the markets between Member Slates; it is shown thai the repackaging cannot affect the original condition of the product inside the packaging; such is the case, in particular, where the importer has merely carried out operations involving no risk of lhe product being affected, such as, for example, the removal of blisler packs, flasks, phials, ampoules or inhalers from their original external packaging and their replacement in new external packaging, the fixing of self-slick labels on lhe inner packaging of the product, the addition to the packaging of new user instructions or information,
Den omstændighed, at den for ompakningen ansvarlige person anvender det samme farvevalg på det ompakkede produkt som indehaveren af varemærket, er uden betydning.
The fact that the person responsible for the repackaging uses the same colour scheme for the repackaged product as the owner of the trade mark is irrelevant.
[Gælder kun for sag C-427/93] Såfremt den for ompakningen ansvarlige person indlægger yderligere varer i den nye emballage, der ikke er produceret på varemærkeindehaverens ansvar, kan denne principielt modsætte sig, at de ompakkede varer fortsat markedsføres under varemærket, medmindre oprindelsen af det yderligere indlagte materiale er oplyst på en sådan måde, at det udelukker ethvert indtryk af, at varemærkeindehaveren er ansvarlig for det.«
[Applies only to Case C-427/93] Where the person responsible for the repackaging inserts in the new packaging additional goods not produced under the responsibility of the owner of the trade mark, the latter may in principle object to the further marketing of the repackaged goods under the trade mark, unless the origin of the additional material is indicated in such a way as to dispel any impression that the trade mark owner is responsible for it.»
Forenede sager C-71/94, C-72/94 og C-73/94 Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH / Beiersdorf AG m.fl. Frie varebevægelser
Joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94 Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH ν Beiersdorf AG and Others Free movement of goods
Præjudiciel »Ompakning af mærkevarer (Domstolens plenum) om der findes nogle yderligere betingelser, som importøren skal opfylde.
Preliminary ruling (Repackaging of trade-marked products (Full Court)
Ved kendelser af 27. januar 1994, indgået til Domstolen den 25. februar 1994, har Bundesgerichtshof stillet en række præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EF-traktatens artikel 36 i forbindelse med varemærkeretten.
Pharm»), which imports into Germany certain products manufactured by the former companies.
I begge tilfælde opstår nemlig det spørgsmål, om varemærkeindehaverens beføjelse, når henses til varemærkets hovedfunktion, til at modsætte sig, at varemærket benyttes af en tredjemand efter ompakning af produktet, er omfattet af varemærkerettens særlige genstand.
By orders of 27 January 1994, received at the Court on 25 February 1994, the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a number of questions on the interpretation of Article 36 of the EC Treaty in relation to trade marks.
Med disse spørgsmål, som skal behandles samlet, anmoder den nationale ret i det væsentlige om en præcisering af betingelserne for, at indehaveren af en varemærkeret i medfør af traktatens artikel 36 kan påberåbe sig denne ret for at forhindre en importør i at markedsføre et lægemiddel, der er bragt i omsætning i en anden medlemsstat af varemærkeindehaveren eller med dennes samtykke, i tilfælde hvor importøren har ompakket produktet i en ny ydre emballage, hvorigennem man kan se det varemærke, der anbragt på den originale emballage, eller hvor importøren har ændret en original ydre emballages indhold og udseende, men har bibeholdt det varemærke, som producenten har anbragt på den.
In these questions, which it is convenient to examine together, the national court is essentially asking in what circumstances a trade mark owner may, in accordance with Article 36 of the Treaty, rely on his rights as owner to prevent an importer from marketing a pharmaceutical product which was put on the market in another Member State by the owner or with his consent, where that importer has repackaged the product in new external packaging through which the trade mark affixed to the original packaging has been made visible, or has altered the contents and appearance of original external packaging while preserving the trade mark affixed to it by
Denne retspraksis bør dog præciseres under hensyn til de argumenter, der er fremført i de foreliggende sager og sagerne Bristol-Myers Squibb m.fl. og i sagen MPA Pharma (sag C232/94), hvori Domstolen i dag har afsagt dom.
The questions were raised in three disputes between, on the one hand, Beiersdorf AG (hereinafter «Beiersdorf»), Boehringer Ingelheim KG (hereinafter «Boehringer») and Farmitalia Carlo Erba GmbH (hereinafter «Farmitalia»), which are pharmaceutical manufacturers, and, on the other hand, Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH (hereinafter «Eurim-
»EF-traktatens artikel 36 skal fortolkes således, at indehaveren af en varemærkeret kan påberåbe sig denne ret for at forhindre en importør i at markedsføre et lægemiddel, der er bragt i omsætning i en anden medlemsstat af varemærkeindehaveren eller med dennes samtykke, i tilfælde hvor importøren har ompakket produktet i en ny ydre emballage, hvorigennem man kan se det varemærke, der er anbragt på den originale emballage, eller hvor importøren har ændret en original ydre emballages indhold og udseende, men har bibeholdt det varemærke, som producenten har anbragt på den, medmindre
the manufacturer. In particular, the Court is asked to explain the significance and content of the concepts of «artificial partitioning of the markets» and adverse effect on «the original condition of the product» established by its case­law, and to rule on the existence of certain further conditions which the importer must fulfil.
— det godtgøres, at varemærkeindehaverens brug af varemærkeretten til at modsætte sig markedsføring af de ompakkede produkter under varemærket bidrager til en kunstig opdeling af markederne mellem medlemsstaterne.
That question is essentially answered by the Hoffmann-La Roche judgment ([1978] ECR 1139), which shows that the owner may legitimately oppose such use of his trade mark, unless the four conditions set out in that judgment are satisfied.
Det tilkommer den nationale retsinstans at bedømme, om beskæringen af 'blisterkortene eller den fornyede påstempting af produktionschargenumrene er f oretaget på en måde, der udelukker enhver konkret risiko for, at den originale tibtand af de tabletter, der er anbragt på kortene, berøres.
That case­law must, however, be clarified further in the light of the arguments raised in these cases, and in Bristol-Myers Squibb and Case C­232/94 M PA Pharma ν Rhône-Poulenc, in which the Court has also given judgment today.
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet ("Domstolens plenum) den 14. december 1995.
Advocate General F.G. Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sining of the Full Court on 14 December 1995.
Hvorvidt ompakningen vil kunne berøre varernes oprindelige tilstand eller på anden måde skade varemærkets omdømme, er i det væsentlige et spørgsmål om de faktiske omstændigheder, som den nationale domstol skal fastslå i overensstemmelse med sine egne nationale bestemmelser vedrørende processuelle spørgsmål som f.eks. bevisbyrde, beviskravet og de bevismidler, der kan anvendes. Disse bestemmelser må ikke behandle krav, der hviler på fællesskabsretten, mindre fordelagtigt end krav i henhold til national ret og må ikke gøre det urimeligt vanskeligt at gennemføre rettigheder, der følger af fællesskabsretten.
Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty and Article 7(1) and (2) of Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks are to be interpreted as meaning that, where goods bearing a trade mark are placed on the market in a Member Slate with the consent of the proprietor of the trade mark and another person buys those goods, places them in new external packaging, through which the trade mark affixed to the internal packaging remains visible, and markets the repackaged goods in another Member State, the proprietor of the trade mark cannot invoke it in order to prevent such marketing unless the repackaging is done in such a way that it is capable of affecting the original condition of the goods or otherwise impairing the reputation of the trade mark.
Såfremt blisterpakningerne beskæres, er indehaveren af varemærket berettiget til at modsætte sig fortsat markedsføring af varerne, såfremt den nationale domstol finder, at en sådan fremgangsmåde vil kunne berøre varernes oprindelige tilstand under hensyn til risikoen for forurening.
In the case of pharmaceutical products, the person who carries out the repackaging of the goods must in principle inform the trade mark proprietor and provide him with a specimen of the repackaged product.
Indehaveren af varemærket er berettiget til at modsætte sig, at ompakkede varer fortsat markedsføres under varemærket, ikke alene, såfremt ompakningen berører varernes tekniske kvalitet, men også såfremt den giver dem et billigt udseende, der kan være til skade for varemærkets omdømme.
He must also indicate on the repackaged product that he is responsible for the repackaging but need not mention the manufacturer of the goods or state that the proprietor of the trade mark has not authorized the repackaging.
[Gælder kun for sag C­71/94] Såfremt der på undersiden af blisterpladerne er trykt oplysninger, ifølge hvilken pillerne hører til bestemte dage i ugen i en bestemt periode, og denne periode ikke længere er fuldstændig som følge af beskæringen af blisterpladerne, er indehavere., af varemærket berettiget til at modsætte sig fortsat markedsføring af varerne, såfremt den nationale domstol finder, at afbrydelsen af rækken af ugedage giver anledning til urimelig forvirring for forbrugerne eller udsætter deres sundhed for fare eller er til skade for varemærkets omdømme.
The question whether the repackaging is capable of affecting the original condition of the goods or otherwise impairing the reputation of the trade mark is essentially a question of fact to be determined by the national court in accordance with its own domestic rules regarding procedural matters such as the burden of proof, the standard of proof and the admissibility of evidence. Those rules must not treat claims founded on Community law less favourably than claims founded on national law and must not make the enforcement of rights arising from Community law unduly difficult.
[Gælder kun for sag C­73/94] Såfremt en varemærkeindehaver sælger to versioner af et produkt i medlemsstat A under navnene 'Sermion' og 'Sermion forte' og i medlemsstat Β sælger et produkt under navnet 'Sermion', der svarer til det produkt, som kendes under betegnelsen 'Sermion forte' i medlemsstat A, kan han ikke under henvisning til sine varemærkerettigheder forhindre, at der i medlemsstat A videresælges varer, som han har bragt på markedet i medlemsstat Β under navnet 'Sermion', selv om den person, der videresælger varerne, betegner dem som 'Sermion forte'.«
Where the product in question is a pharmaceutical product which was originally packaged in blister packs and the person responsible for the repackaging simply removes the blister packs from their original external packaging and places them in new external packaging without cutting them, and where that person uses suitable premises, employs competent staff and takes all reasonable safeguards, there is not in principle any ground for finding that the original condition of the goods may be affected, and the national court is precluded from making such a finding in the absence of specific evidence.
lægemiddel, der er bragt i omsætning i en anden medlemsstat af varemærkeindehaveren eller med dennes samtykke, i tilfælde hvor importøren har ompakket produktet og genanbragt varemærket på det. I denne forbindelse anmodes Domstolen navnlig om at forklare betydningen og indholdet af begrebet »kunstig opdeling af markederne« og at fastslå, om der findes nogle yderligere betingelser, som importøren skal opfylde.
The owner of the trade mark is entitled to object to the further marketing of repackaged goods under the trade mark not only where the repackaging affects the technical quality of the goods but also where it gives them a shoddy appearance capable of damaging the reputation of the trade mark.
Ifølge fast praksis tillader artikel 36 kun, at det grundlæggende princip om de frie varebevægelser inden for det fælles marked fraviges i det omfang, dette er begrundet i hensynet til beskyttelse af de rettigheder, der udgør den pågældende industrielle og kommercielle ejendomsrets særlige genstand.
[Applies only to Case C-71/94_BAR_ Where information printed on the back of the blister packs allocates the pills to specific days of the week for a certain period and that period becomes incomplete as a result of the severing of the blister packs, the owner of the trade mark is entitled to object to the further marketing of the goods if the national court considers that the interruption of the series of days of the week causes unacceptable confusion for the consumer or endangers his health or is detrimental to the reputation of the trade mark.
Med disse spørgsmål, som skal behandles samlet, anmoder den nationale ret i det væsentlige om en præcisering af betingelserne for, at indehaveren af en varemærkeret i medfør af traktatens artikel 36 kan påberåbe sig denne ret for at forhindre en importør i at markedsføre et
[Applies only to Case C-73/94] Where a trade mark owner sells two versions of a product in Member State A under the names "Sermion" and "Sermion forte" and sells in Member State Β under the name "Sermion" a product which corresponds to the product known as "Sermion forte" in Member State A, he cannot invoke his trade mark rights in order to prevent the resale in Member State A of goods which he has placed on the market in Member State Β under the name "Sermion", even though the person who resells the goods describes them as "Sermion forte".»
— indehaveren af varemærket underrettes om salget af den ompakkede vare forud herfor, og
Case C-232/94 MPA Pharma GmbH ν Rhône-Poulenc Pharma GmbH Free movement of goods
— det på den nye emballage angives, hvem der har foretaget ompakningen.
Preliminary ruling (Repackaging of trade-marked products (Full Court)
indehaveren af en varemærkeret kan påberåbe sig sin ret for at forhindre, at en importør markedsfører en vare, der er bragt i omsætning i en anden medlemsstat af varemærkeindehaveren eller med dennes samtykke, når importøren har ompakket varen i en ny emballage, hvorpå varemærket er genanbragt, medmindre
In Hoffmann-La Roche ([1978] ECR 1139), the Court held, applying those principles, that Article 36 of the Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark owner may rely on his rights as owner in order to prevent an importer from marketing a product put on the market in another Member State by the owner or with his consent, where that importer has repackaged the product in new packaging to which the trade mark has been reaffixed, unless:
Denne retspraksis bør dog præciseres under hensyn til de argumenter, der er fremført i den foreliggende sag og i sagerne Bristol-Myers Squibb m.fl., jf. ovenfor, og Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel (forenede sager C-71/94, C-72/94 og C-73/94), hvori Domstolen i dag har afsagt dom.
The questions were raised in proceedings between Rhône­Poulenc Pharma GmbH, which manufactures pharmaceutical products, and MPA Pharma GmbH, which imports some of those products into Germany.
— det godtgøres, at indehaverens benyttelse af varemærket sammenholdt med det salgssystem, som denne anvender, bidrager til en kunstig opdeling af markederne mellem medlemsstaterne,
it is established that reliance on the trade­mark right by the owner, having regard to the marketing system which he has adopted, will contribute to the artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States; it is shown that the repackaging cannot adversely affect the original condition of the product; the owner of the mark receives prior notice before the repackaged product is put on sale; and
— det påvises, at ompakningen ikke kan berøre varens originale tilstand,
In these questions, which it is convenient to examine together, the national court is essentially asking in what circumstances a trade mark owner may, in accordance with Article 36 of the Treaty, rely on his rights as owner in order to prevent an importer from marketing a pharmaceutical product which was put on the market in another Member State by the owner or with his consent, where that importer has repackaged the product and reaffixed the trade mark.
»EF-traktatens artikel 36 skal fortolkes således, at indehaveren af en varemærkeret kan påberåbe sig denne ret f or at forhindre en importør i at markedsføre et lægemiddel, der er bragt i omsætning i en anden medlemsstat af varemærkeindehaveren eller med dennes samtykke, i tilfælde hvor importøren har ompakket produktet og genanbragt varemærket på det, medmindre det godtgøres, at varemærkeindehaverens brug af varemærkeretten til at modsætte sig markedsføring af de ompakkede produkter under varemærket bidrager til en kunstig opdeling af markederne mellem medlemsstaterne.
The Court's case­law shows that Article 36 allows derogations from the fundamental principle of the free movement of goods within the common market only in so far as such derogations are justified in order to safeguard the rights which constitute the specific subject­matter of the industrial and commercial property in question.
Det tilkommer imidlertid den nationale retsinstans at efterprøve, at det i emballagen indeholdte produkts originale tibtand ikke indirekte er blevet berørt, bla. som følge af, at det ompakkede produkts ydre etter indre emballage eller en ny indlægsseddel ikke indeholder visse vigtige oplysninger eller indeholder urigtige oplysninger,
That case­law must, however, be clarified further in the light of the arguments raised in these cases, and in Bristol-Myers Squibb, cited above, and Joined Cases C­71/94, C­72/94 and C­73/94 Eurim-Pharm ν Beiersdorf and Others, in which the Court has also given judgment today.
Præjudiciel »Statsstøtte — nationale retsinstansers kompetence i tilfælde af Kommissionens samtidige undersøgelse — begrebet statsstøtte — følgerne af at EF-traktatens artikel 93, stk. 3, sidste punktum, er tihidesat* (Domstolens plenum)
«1) Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty and Article 7(1) and (2) of Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks are to be interpreted as meaning that, where goods bearing a trade mark are placed on the market in a Member State with the consent of the proprietor of the trade mark and another person buys those goods, places them in new external packaging, to which he affixes the trade mark, and markets the repackaged goods in another Member State, the proprietor of the trade mark cannot invoke it in order to prevent such marketing unless the repackaging is done in such a way that it is capable of affecting the original condition of the goods or otherwise impairing the reputation of the trade mark.
Ved dom af 5. januar 1994, indgået til Domstolen den 31. januar 1994, har Tribunal de commerce de Paris forelagt en række præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EF-traktatens artikel 92 og 93.
The person who repackages the goods must in principle inform the trade mark proprietor and provide him with a specimen of the repackaged product.
Under kontrollen med medlemsstaternes overholdelse af deres forpligtelser i henhold til traktatens artikel 92 og 93 indtager de nationale retter og Kommissionen roller, som dels supplerer hinanden, dels er klart adskilte.
He must also indicate on the repackaged product that he is responsible for the repackaging but need not mention the manufacturer of the goods or state that the proprietor of the trade mark has not authorized the repackaging.
Sagen vedrører den logistiske og forretningsmæssige bistand, som det franske postvæsen har ydet SFMI og Chronopost i disses kurérvirksomhed.
The indication as to who is responsible for the repackaging must be written in such a way that a person with normal eyesight, exercising a normal degree of altcntiveness, would be able to understand it.
De nationale retter kan ikke, når de skal drage konsekvenserne af en tilsidesættelse af artikel 93, stk. 3, sidste punktum, udtale sig om, hvorvidt støtteforanstaltningerne er forenelige med fællesmarkedet, idet Kommissionen er enekompetent til at træffe afgørelse herom under forbehold af Domstolens prøvelsesret.
2) The question whether the repackaging is capable of affecting the original condition of the goods or otherwise impairing the reputation of the trade mark is essentially a question of fact to be determined by the national court in accordance with its own domestic rules regarding procedural matters such as the burden of proof, the standard of proof and the admissibility of evidence.
Da spørgsmål 58 vedrører problemet om, hvorvidt den nationale ret har kompetence til at behandle sagen og kan fortsætte hermed til trods for, at Kommissionen samtidig undersøger den, må de behandles før spørgsmål 1-4, som vedrører statsstøttebegrebet og de foranstaltninger, som skal træffes, såfremt traktatens artikel 93, stk. 3, sidste punktum, er tilsidesat.
Those rules must not treat claims founded on Community law less favourably than claims founded on national law and must not make the enforcement of rights arising from Community law unduly difficult.