natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The purpose of this section is to address a certain number of restraints that in one form or another are commonly found in licensing agreements from technology pools and which need to be assessed in the overall context of the pool.
To načelo izčrpanja pravic v EGP na primer predpisujeta člen 7(1) akta iz točke 9h v Prilogi XVII k Sporazumu EGP, tj. Direktive 2008/95/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 22. oktobra 2008 o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z blagovnimi znamkami (UL L 299, 8.11.2008, str. 25, vključena v Sporazum EGP s Sklepom Skupnega odbora EGP št. 56/2007 z dne 9. junija 2007 (UL L 266, 11.10.2007, str. 17 in Dopolnilo EGP št. 48, 11.10.2007, str. 13)), ki določa, da znamka imetniku ne daje pravice, da prepove njeno uporabo v zvezi z blagom, ki ga je na trg na ozemlju, ki ga zajema Sporazum EGP, pod navedeno blagovno znamko dal imetnik znamke ali je bilo to storjeno z njegovim soglasjem, in člen 4(2) akta iz točke 5 v Prilogi XVII k Sporazumu EGP, tj. Direktive 2009/24/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 23. aprila 2009 o pravnem varstvu računalniških programov (UL L 111, 5.5.2009, str. 16, vključena v Sporazum EGP s Sklepom Skupnega odbora EGP št. 39/2011 z dne 1. aprila 2011 (UL L 171, 30.6.2011, str. 40, in Dopolnilo EGP št. 37, 30.6.2011, str. 47)), ki določa, da je, ko imetnik pravice proda prvo kopijo računalniškega programa na ozemlju, ki ga zajema Sporazum EGP, ali se to stori z njegovim soglasjem, pravica distribuiranja za to kopijo na ozemlju, ki ga zajema Sporazum EGP, izčrpana z izjemo pravice do nadzora nadaljnjega dajanja programa ali njegove kopije v najem.
Generally the TTBER does not apply to licence agreements concluded between the pool and third-party licensees (see point (247) above).
Glej npr. sodbo Sodišča z dne 13. julija 1966 v združenih zadevah Consten in Grundig (56/64 in 58/64, Recueil, str. 429).
This section therefore deals with the individual assessment of licensing issues that are particular to licensing in the context of technology pools.
Metodologija za uporabo člena 53(3) je določena v Smernicah Nadzornega organa o uporabi člena 53(3) Sporazuma EGP, navedenih v opombi 4.
In making its assessment of technology transfer agreements between the pool and its licensees the Authority will be guided by the following main principles:
Glej sodbo Sodišča z dne 30. junija 1966 v zadevi Société Technique Minière (56/65, Recueil, str. 337) in sodbo Sodišča z dne 28. maja 1998 v zadevi John Deere (C-7/95 P, Recueil, str.
the stronger the market position of the pool the greater the risk of anti-competitive effects;
I-3111, točka 76).
the stronger the market position of the pool, the more likely that agreeing not to license to all potential licensees or to license on discriminatory terms will infringe Article 53;
V zvezi s tem glej npr. sodbo v zadevi Consten in Grundig, navedeno v opombi 11.
pools should not unduly foreclose third-party technologies or limit the creation of alternative pools;
V zvezi s tem glej sodbo Sodišča v zadevi Société Technique Minière, navedeno v opombi 13, in sodbo Sodišča z dne 8. junija 1982 v zadevi Nungesser (258/78, Recueil, str. 2015).
the technology transfer agreements should not contain any of the hardcore restrictions listed in Article 4 of the TTBER (see Section 3.4).
Za primere glej točke 126 do 127.
Undertakings setting up a technology pool that is compatible with Article 53, are normally free to negotiate and fix royalties for the technology package (subject to any commitment given to license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, FRAND) and each technology's share of the royalties either before or after the standard is set.
V zvezi s tem glej npr. sodbo Sodišča z dne 8. julija 1999 v zadevi Anic Partecipazioni (C-49/92 P, Recueil, str.
Such agreement is inherent in the establishment of the pool and cannot in itself be considered restrictive of competition.
I-4125, točka 99).
In certain circumstances it may be more efficient if the royalties of the pool are agreed before the standard is chosen, to avoid that the choice of the standard increases the royalty rate by conferring a significant degree of market power on one or more essential technologies.
Glej sodbo Sodišča z dne 28. marca 1984 v združenih zadevah CRAM in Rheinzink (29/83 in 30/83, Recueil, str. 1679, točka 26) ter sodbo Sodišča z dne 8. novembra 1983 v združenih zadevah ANSEAU-NAVEWA (96/82 in druge, Recueil, str. 3369, točke od 23 do 25).
However, licensees must remain free to determine the price of products produced under the licence.
Sodba Splošnega sodišča z dne 29. novembra 2012 v zadevi Groupement des cartes bancaires proti Komisiji, točka 146 (T-491/07).
Where the pool has a dominant position on the market, royalties and other licensing terms should be non-excessive and non-discriminatory and licences should be non-exclusive [100].
Sodba Sodišča z dne 20. novembra 2008 v zadevi Beef Industry Development Society in Barry Brothers (C-209/07, ZOdl., str.
These requirements are necessary to ensure that the pool is open and does not lead to foreclosure and other anti-competitive effects on down-stream markets.
I-8637, točka 21).
These requirements, however, do not preclude different royalty rates for different uses.
Nadaljnja navodila glede pojma omejitve konkurence po cilju so na voljo v Smernicah Nadzornega organa o uporabi člena 53(3) Sporazuma RGP, navedenih v opombi 4.
It is in general not considered restrictive of competition to apply different royalty rates to different product markets, whereas there should be no discrimination within product markets.
Glej tudi sodbo Sodišča z dne 6. oktobra 2009 v združenih zadevah GlaxoSmithKline Services in drugi proti Komisiji in drugim (C-501/06 P, C-513/06 P, C-515/06 P in C-519/06 P, ZOdl., str.
In particular, the treatment of licensees of the pool should not depend on whether or not they are also licensors.
I-9291, točke 59 do 64).
The Authority will therefore take into account whether licensors and licensees are subject to the same royalty obligations.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 20. novembra 2008 v zadevi Beef Industry Development Society in Barry Brothers (C-209/07, ZOdl., str.
Licensors and licensees should be free to develop competing products and standards.
I-8637, točke 21 do 39).
They should also be free to grant and obtain licences outside the pool.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 4. junija 2009 v zadevi T-Mobile Netherlands in drugi (C-8/08, ZOdl., str.
These requirements are necessary in order to limit the risk of foreclosure of third-party technologies and ensure that the pool does not limit innovation and does not preclude the creation of competing technological solutions.
I-4529, točke 31 in 36 do 39) in sodba Sodišča z dne 14. marca 2013 v zadevi Allianz Hungária Biztosító in drugi (C-32/11, ZOdl., točke 33 do 38).
Where pooled technology is included in a (de facto) industry standard and where the parties are subject to non-compete obligations, the pool creates a particular risk of preventing the development of new and improved technologies and standards.
Glej sodbo v zadevi John Deere, navedeno v opombi 13.
Grant-back obligations should be non-exclusive and limited to developments that are essential or important to the use of the pooled technology.
Navodila glede vprašanja znatnosti so na voljo v obvestilu Nadzornega organa o sporazumih majhnega pomena, ki ne omejujejo znatno konkurence po členu 53(1) Sporazuma EGP (UL C 67, 20.3.2003, str. 20 in Dopolnilo EGP št. 15, 20.3.2003, str. 11).
This allows the pool to feed on and benefit from improvements to the pooled technology.
V obvestilu je znatnost negativno opredeljena.
It is legitimate for the parties to ensure by grant-back obligations that the exploitation of the pooled technology cannot be held up by licensees, including subcontractors working under the licence of the licensee, that hold or obtain essential patents.
Ni nujno, da imajo sporazumi zunaj področja uporabe obvestila de minimis znatne omejevalne učinke.
One of the problems identified with regard to technology pools is the risk that they may shield invalid patents.
Potrebna je posamična presoja.
Pooling may raise the costs/risks for a successful challenge, because the challenge might fail if only one patent in the pool is valid.
Sodba Splošnega sodišča z dne 1. julija 2010 v zadevi AstraZeneca proti Komisiji (T-321/05, ZOdl., str.
The shielding of invalid patents in the pool may oblige licensees to pay higher royalties and may also prevent innovation in the field covered by an invalid patent.
II-2805, točka 267).
In this context, non-challenge clauses, including termination clauses [101], in a technology transfer agreement between the pool and third parties are likely to fall within Article 53(1).
Smernice Nadzornega organa o uporabi člena 53(3) Sporazuma EGP, točka 26, navedene v opombi 4.
Pools often include both patents and patent applications.
Glej člen 1(2) poglavja II Protokola 4 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču.
If patent applicants who submit their patent applications to pools, where available, use the patent application procedures that allow for a faster granting, this will achieve faster certainty on the validity and scope of these patents.
Obvestilo Nadzornega organa Efte o opredelitvi upoštevnega trga za namene konkurenčnega prava v Evropskem gospodarskem prostoru (UL L 200, 16.7.1998, str. 48 in Dopolnilo EGP št. 28, 16.7.1998, str. 3).
OJ L 259, 4.10.2007, p. 1 and EEA Supplement No 46, 4.10.2007, p. 1.
Glej na primer sklep Komisije v zadevi COMP/M.5675 Syngenta/Monsanto, kjer je Komisija analizirala združitev dveh vertikalno integriranih žlahtniteljev sončnic, tako da je proučila (i) nabavni trg za trgovanje (tj. izmenjavo in podeljevanje licence) s sončničnimi sortami (starševskih linij in hibridov) in (ii) podrejeni trg za trženje sončničnih hibridov.
The TTBER replaces the act previously referred to in point 5 of Annex XIV to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Commission Regulation (EC) No 772/2004 of 27 April 2004 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of technology transfer agreements (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 11), incorporated into the EEA Agreement by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 42/2005 of 11 March 2005 (OJ L 198, 28.7.2005, p. 42 and EEA Supplement No 38, 28.7.2005, p. 24).
V zadevi COMP/M.5406, IPIC/MAN Ferrostaal AG je Komisija poleg proizvodnega trga za visokokakovosten melamin opredelila tudi nabavni tehnološki trg za dobavo tehnologije za proizvodnjo melamina.
See by analogy Joined Cases C-395/96 P and C-396/96 P, Compagnie Maritime Belge [2000] ECR I-1365, paragraph 130, and point 106 of the Authority guidelines on the application of Article 53(3) of the EEA Agreement (OJ C 208, 6.9.2007, p. 1 and EEA Supplement No 42, 6.9.2007, p. 1).
Glej tudi zadevo COMP/M.269, Shell/Montecatini.
Following the Agreement amending Protocol 4 to the Agreement of the EFTA states on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice of 24 September 2004, which entered into force on 20 May 2005, Chapter II of Protocol 4 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement reflects to a large extent in the EFTA pillar Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1).
Glej tudi Sklep Komisije v zadevi COMP/M.5675 Syngenta/Monsanto in Sklep v zadevi COMP/M.5406, IPIC/MAN Ferrostaal AG.
In the following the term ‘agreement’ includes concerted practices and decisions of associations of undertakings.
Glej tudi točke (119) do (122) Smernic Nadzornega organa o uporabi člena 53 Sporazuma EGP za sporazume o horizontalnem sodelovanju („horizontalne smernice“) ( UL C 362, 12.12.2013, str. 3 in Dopolnilo EGP št. 69, 12.12.2013, str. 1).
See Authority guidelines on the effect on trade concept contained in Articles 53 and 54 of the EEA Agreement (OJ C 291, 30.11.2006, p. 46 and EEA Supplement No 59, 30.11.2006, p. 18).
Glej tudi točko (157).
In the following the term ‘restriction’ includes the prevention and distortion of competition.
Po scenariju, v katerem sta se podjetji na splošno zavezali, da bosta podeljevali licenco za nekatere pravice intelektualne lastnine, se za posamezno pogodbenico ne more šteti, da ima možnost blokiranja na podlagi teh pravic intelektualne lastnine.
Which includes rental rights.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 15. septembra 1998 v združenih zadevah European Night Services in drugi proti Komisiji (T-374/94, T-375/94, T-384/94 in T-388/94, Recueil, str.
See in this respect Case 158/86, Warner Brothers and Metronome Video [1988] ECR 2605 and Case C-61/97, Foreningen af danske videogramdistributører [1998] ECR I-5171.
II-3141, točka 137).
This principle of EEA exhaustion is for example enshrined in Article 7(1) of the act referred to in point 9h of Annex XVII to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ L 299, 8.11.2008, p. 25, incorporated into the EEA Agreement by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 56/2007 of 9 June 2007 (OJ L 266, 11.10.2007, p. 17 and EEA Supplement No 48, 11.10.2007, p. 13)), which provides that the trade mark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit its use in relation to goods which have been put on the market in the territory covered by the EEA Agreement under that trade mark by the proprietor or with its consent, and Article 4(2) of the act referred to in point 5 of Annex XVII to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (OJ L 111, 5.5.2009, p. 16, incorporated into the EEA Agreement by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 39/2011 of 1 April 2011 (OJ L 171, 30.6.2011, p. 40 and EEA Supplement No 37, 30.6.2011, p. 47)), which provides that the first sale in the territory covered by the EEA Agreement of a copy of a program by the right-holder or with its consent shall exhaust the distribution right within the territory covered by the EEA Agreement of that copy, with the exception of the right to control further rental of the program or a copy thereof.
Sodba Splošnega sodišča z dne 14. aprila 2011 v zadevi Visa Europe Ltd in Visa International Service proti Komisiji (T-461/07, ZOdl., str.
See, e.g. Joined Cases 56/64 and 58/64, Consten and Grundig [1966] ECR 429.
II-1729, točka 167).
The methodology for the application of Article 53(3) is set out in the Authority guidelines on the application of Article 53(3) of the EEA Agreement cited in footnote 4.
Sodba Splošnega sodišča z dne 14. aprila 2011 v zadevi Visa Europe Ltd in Visa International Service proti Komisiji (T-461/07, ZOdl., str.
See Case 56/65, Société Technique Minière [1966] ECR 337, and Case C-7/95 P, John Deere [1998] ECR I-3111, paragraph 76.
II-1729, točka 189).
See in this respect, e.g. the judgment in Consten and Grundig cited in footnote 11.
V zvezi s tem glej Obvestilo o sporazumih manjšega pomena, navedeno v opombi 22.
See in this respect the judgment in Société Technique Minière cited in footnote 13 and Case 258/78, Nungesser [1982] ECR 2015.
V skladu s členom 3(2) poglavja II Protokola 4 k Sporazumu o nadzornem organu in sodišču sporazumi, ki lahko vplivajo na trgovino med državami Efte, vendar niso prepovedani po členu 53, tudi ne morejo biti prepovedani po nacionalni zakonodaji o konkurenci.
For examples see points (126) to (127).
TTBER bi zdaj lahko zajemala sporazum o prenosu tehnologije, ki je bil ocenjen v Odločbi Komisije v zadevi Moosehead/Whitbread (UL L 100, 20.4.1990, str. 32), glej zlasti odstavek 16 navedene odločbe.
See in this respect, e.g. Case C-49/92 P, Anic Partecipazioni [1999] ECR I-4125, paragraph 99.
V zvezi s tem glej sodbo Sodišča z dne 6. oktobra 1982 v zadevi Coditel (II) (262/81, Recueil, str. 3381).
See Joined Cases 29/83 and 30/83, CRAM and Rheinzink [1984] ECR 1679, paragraph 26, and Joined Cases 96/82 and others, Anseau-Navewa [1983] ECR 3369, paragraphs 23-25.
UL L 102, 23.4.2010, str. 1, vključena v Sporazum EGP s Sklepom št. 77/2010 (UL L 244, 16.9.2010, str. 35 in Dopolnilo EGP št. 49, 16.9.2010, str. 34).
Case T-491/07 Groupement des cartes bancaires v Commission, judgment of 29 November 2012, paragraph 146.
Izraza „licenciranje“ in „licenčen“, ki se uporabljata v teh smernicah, vključujeta tudi odstop pravic, neuveljavljanje pravic ali sporazume o poravnavi, če zajemajo prenos tehnoloških pravic, kot je opisano v tem poglavju.
Case C-209/07 Beef Industry Development Society and Barry Brothers [2008] ECR I-8637, paragraph 21.
Za podrobnosti o sporazumih o poravnavi glej točko (234) in naslednje.
Further guidance with regard to the notion of restriction of competition by object can be obtained in the Authority guidelines on the application of Article 53(3) of the EEA Agreement cited in footnote 4.
Glej uvodno izjavo 6 TTBER in tudi podpoglavje 3.2.6 v nadaljevanju.
See also Joined Cases C-501/06 P, C-513/06 P, C-515/06 P and C-519/06 P GlaxoSmithKline Services and Others v Commission and Others [2009] ECR I-9291, paragraphs 59 to 64.
Za več podrobnosti glej točko (248).
Case C-209/07 Beef Industry Development Society and Barry Brothers [2008] ECR I-8637, paragraphs 21 to 39.
Glej opombo 39.
Case C-8/08 T-Mobile Netherlands and Others [2009] ECR I-4529, paragraphs 31 and 36 to 39 and Case C-32/11 Allianz Hungária Biztosító and Others, judgment of 14 March 2013, paragraphs 33 to 38.
UL C 362, 22.11.2012, str. 1 in Dopolnilo EGP št. 65, 22.11.2012, str. 1.
See the judgment in John Deere cited in footnote 13.
UL L 153, 18.6.1994, str. 30 in Dopolnilo EGP št. 15, 18.6.1994, str. 29.
Guidance on the issue of appreciability can be found in the Authority notice on agreements of minor importance which do not appreciably restrict competition under Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement (OJ C 67, 20.3.2003, p. 20 and EEA Supplement No 15, 20.3.2003, p. 11.).
Glej točko 3 Obvestila Nadzornega organa o pogodbah o podizvajanju, navedenega v opombi 44.
The notice defines appreciability in a negative way.
Glej tudi poglavje 3.2.6.1.
Agreements, which fall outside the scope of the de minimis notice, do not necessarily have appreciable restrictive effects.
Ta zadnji primer pa je zajet v Uredbi (EU) št. 1217/2010, navedeni v opombi 50; glej tudi poglavje 3.2.6.1 v nadaljevanju.
An individual assessment is required.
UL L 335, 18.12.2010, str. 43, vključena v Sporazum EGP s Sklepom št. 3/2011 (UL L 93, 7.4.2011, str. 32 in Dopolnilo EGP št. 19, 7.4.2011, str. 7).
Case T-321/05 Astra Zeneca v Commission [2010] ECR II-2805, paragraph 267.
UL L 335, 18.12.2010, str. 36, vključena v Sporazum EGP s Sklepom št. 3/2011 (UL L 93, 7.4.2011, str. 32 in Dopolnilo EGP št. 19, 7.4.2011, str. 7).
The Authority's guidelines on the application of Article 53(3) of the EEA Agreement, point 26, cited in footnote 4.
Glej tudi brošuro „Politika konkurence v Evropi – Pravila konkurence za sporazume o dobavi in distribuciji“, Evropska komisija, Urad za publikacije Evropske unije, 2012, Luxembourg.
See Article 1(2) of Chapter II of Protocol 4 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement.
Opomba 39 in opomba 44.
Notice of the EFTA Surveillance Authority on the definition of the relevant market for the purpose of competition law within the European Economic Area (EEA) (OJ L 200, 16.7.1998, p. 48 and EEA Supplement No 28, 16.7.1998, p. 3).
Glej na primer sodno prakso, navedeno v opombi 18.
See for example Commission Decision COMP/M.5675 Syngenta/Monsanto where the Commission analysed the merger of two vertically integrated sunflower breeders by examining both: (i) the upstream market for the trading (namely the exchange and licensing) of varieties (parental lines and hybrids); and (ii) the downstream market for the commercialisation of hybrids.
Glej točko 18 Smernic Nadzornega organa o uporabi člena 53(3) Sporazuma EGP, navedenih v opombi 4.
In COMP/M.5406, IPIC/MAN Ferrostaal AG, the Commission defined besides a market for the production of high-grade melamine also an upstream technology market for the supply of melamine production technology.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 15. julija 1994 v zadevi Matra (T-17/93, Recueil, str.
See also COMP/M.269, Shell/Montecatini.
II-595, točka 85).
See also Commission Decision COMP/M.5675 Syngenta/Monsanto and Decision COMP/M.5406, IPIC/MAN Ferrostaal AG.
V zvezi s tem glej točko 98 Smernic o uporabi člena 53(3) Sporazuma EGP, navedenih v opombi 4.
See also points (119) to (122) of the Authority guidelines on the applicability of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement to horizontal cooperation agreements (‘Horizontal Guidelines’) ( OJ C 362, 12.12.2013, p. 3 and EEA Supplement No 69, 12.12.2013, p. 1).
To velja tudi v primeru, da ena pogodbenica podeli licenco drugi pogodbenici in pristane, da bo od pridobitelja licence kupila materialni vložek.
See also point (157).
Nakupna cena ima lahko isto funkcijo kot licenčnina.
In a scenario where undertakings have given a general commitment to license certain intellectual property rights, the parties cannot be considered to be in a blocking position on the basis of these intellectual property rights.
V zvezi s tem glej sodbo Sodišča z dne 25. februarja 1986 v zadevi Windsurfing International (193/83, Recueil, str. 611, točka 67).
Joined Cases T-374/94, T-375/94, T-384/94 and T-388/94, European Night Services and Others v Commission [1998] ECR II-3141, paragraph 137.
Glej opombo 44, točka 51.
Case T-461/07, Visa Europe Ltd and Visa International Service v European Commission [2011] ECR II-1729, paragraph 167.
Omejitve glede področja uporabe so podrobneje obravnavane v točki (208) in naslednjih.
Case T-461/07, Visa Europe Ltd and Visa International Service v European Commission [2011] ECR II-1729, paragraph 189.
Za opredelitev pasivne prodaje glej točko 108 teh smernic in Smernice Nadzornega organa o vertikalnih omejitvah, navedene v opombi 44, točka 51.
See in this respect the notice on agreements of minor importance cited in footnote 22.
Ta nedopustna omejitev se uporablja za sporazume o prenosu tehnologije v zvezi s trgovanjem znotraj EGP.
According to Article 3(2) of Chapter II of Protocol 4 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement, agreements which may affect trade between EFTA states, but which are not prohibited by Article 53, cannot be prohibited by national competition law.
Kolikor sporazumi o prenosu tehnologije zadevajo izvoz zunaj EGP ali uvoz/ponovni uvoz iz držav zunaj EGP, glej sodbo Sodišča z dne 28. aprila 1998 v zadevi Javico proti Yves Saint Laurent (C-306/96, Recueil, str.
The TTBER could now cover the technology transfer agreement assessed in the Commission Decision in Moosehead/Whitbread (OJ L 100, 20.4.1990, p. 32), see in particular paragraph 16 of that decision.
I-1983).
See in this respect Case 262/81, Coditel (II) [1982] ECR 3381.
V navedeni sodbi je Sodišče v točki 20 navedlo, da „za sporazum, v katerem se preprodajalec v odnosu do proizvajalca zaveže, da bo prodajal pogodbene izdelke na trgu zunaj Skupnosti, ne more veljati, da ima cilj bistveno omejiti konkurenco na skupnem trgu ali da lahko kot tak vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami“.
OJ L 102, 23.4.2010, p. 1, incorporated into the EEA Agreement by Decision 77/2010 (OJ L 244, 16.9.2010, p. 35 and EEA Supplement No 49, 16.9.2010, p. 34).
V zvezi s tem glej sodbo Sodišča z dne 25. oktobra 1977 v zadevi Metro (I) (26/76, Recueil, str. 1875).
The terms ‘licensing’ or ‘licensed’ used in these guidelines does also include assignment, non-assertion or settlement arrangements as long as a transfer of technology rights takes place as described in this section.
V zvezi s tem glej sodbo Sodišča z dne 27. septembra 1988 v zadevi Bayer proti Süllhofer (65/86, Recueil, str. 5249).
See further on settlement agreements points (234) ff.
V zvezi z izpodbijanjem lastništva znamke glej Odločbo Komisije v zadevi Moosehead/Whitbread (UL L 100, 20.4.1990, str. 32).
See recital 6 of the TTBER and further Section 3.2.6.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 25. februarja 1986 v zadevi Windsurfing International (193/83, Recueil, str. 611, točka 92).
See for more details point (248).
V okviru sporazuma, ki ni resnično izključni sporazum, saj klavzula o odpovedi ni vključena v varnem pristanu TTBER, se lahko dajalec licence v posebnem primeru znajde v podobnem položaju odvisnosti od pridobitelja licence s precejšnjo kupno močjo.