Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T07:08:01.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Territoriality of Trademark Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

Arno A. Blum
Get access

Extract

Can the registered owner of a trademark object to the use of his mark on goods on which the same trademark has been legally affixed abroad, but which have been imported into this country without his consent and against his wishes through what may be termed “irregular channels”, i.e., not through the agent, licensee or subsidiary of the trademark proprietor?

This question of apparently minor importance has lately come to the forefront of interest in professional circles. The intensification of international trade since the end of World War II, the lowering of tariffs, the creation of supra-national economic units such as EEC and EFTA, and the growing number of international firms and concerns with the consequent establishment of sales organizations abroad have brought this question in different sets of circumstances before the courts of many countries. Their decisions have been widely divergent, from country to country, and sometimes even within the same country; many of them have been attacked in textbooks and legal periodicals; their reasoning, even where the results have been accepted, has been criticized and new doctrines have been proposed. In 1967, the International Association for the Protection of Industrial Property (AIPPI), with a view to unifying trademark law, initiated an extensive study of this question, but has so far failed to arrive at a generally acceptable solution.

Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , January 1971 , pp. 18 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 OLG Wien 29.7.55 Österreichische Blätter für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz (hereafter referred to as ÖBL) 1955, 67— “Nescafé”; OGH 4.9.57 “Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht,” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Vereins für den Schutz des gewerblichen Eigentums-internationaler Teil (hereafter referred to as GRUR int.) 1958, 320—“Brunswick”; OGH 29.3.60 GRUR int. 1960, 55—“Seeburg”.

2 Corte di Cassazione 20.10.56 Rivista Diritto Industriale (hereafter referred to as Riv. dir. ind.) 1957 II, 358– “Palmolive”; Ibid., 18.3.58 Nr. 907, Riv. dir. ind. 1958 II, 205—“His Master's Voice”; Ibid., 7.3.59, Foro italiano 1959 I, 1138—“Remy-Martin”; Ibid., 9.7.57, Giustizia civile 1959 I, 1667—“Knorr”; Ibid., 7.8.64, Giustizia civile 1964 I, 2163—“Braun”.

3 Supreme Court (Civ. App. 155/56) 6.6.57—“Columbia”, “His Master's Voice”.

4 See Annuaire de l'Association Internationale pour la Protection de la Propriété Industrielle (hereafter referred to as AIPPI) 1970, 266, but see also 16.

5 See Aippi 1967 II 235.

6 Hoge Raad 29.4.65, Bijblad bij de industrielle eigendom 1965, 119—“Grundig (Nederland)”.

7 Federal Tribunal 13.3.59, Grur int. 1960, 256—“Columbia”, “His Master's Voice” (American production); Federal Tribunal 9.4.63, GRUR int. 1963, 27— “Columbia”, “His Master's Voice”.

8 Supreme Court 1958: Precisa Argentina S.R.L.—AIPPI 1970, 233.

9 Cassation 23.5.45, “Ingénieur-Conseil”, Revue de droit intellectuel 1949, 31— “Diamant”; Ibid., 27.10.61 Journal des Tribunaux 1962, 259—“Moët et Chandon”.

10 RG 2.5.1902, Entscheidungen des Reichsgerichts in Zivilsachen (hereafter referred to as RGZ) 51, 263—“Mariani”; OLG Hamburg 3.10.52, GRUR 1953, 177—“Le rouge baiser”; OLG Düsseldorf 29.3.62, GRUR 1954, 207—“Revlon”; BGH 22.1.64, Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofs in Zivilsachen 41, 84—“Maja”.

11 Supreme Court 1968—see Aippi 1968 II, 325.

12 Supreme Court 1967, “Polycolor”, “Polylock” (hair cosmetics).

13 Federal Tribunal 17.10.58, Grur int. 1959, 241—“Saba-Radio”; Ibid., 4.10.60, GRUR int. 1961, 294—“Philips Television”.

14 Cour de Justice 13.7.66, Grur int. 1966, 580—“Grundig/Consten”.

15 See Aippi 1967 II, 229.

16 Cour de Cassation 17.4.69—see Aippi 1970, 266.

17 “Mariani” decision, see note 10 above.

18 RG 20.9.27, RGZ 118, 76—“Hengstenberg”.

19 WZG sec. 16, notes 32 ff.

20 Grur 1968, 64.

21 Grur int. 1960, 244; 1967, 264.

22 Grur 1969, 450.

23 See Aippi 1967 II, 221–269.

24 Ibid., 1967 III, 63.

25 Ibid., 1968 II, 299–357.

26 Ibid., 1969 II.

27 Grur. int. 1968, 8.

28 US Supreme Court (1923) 260 US 689—Bourjois v. Katzel; and AIPPI 1970, 257 ff.

29 See note 14 above.