作者
Chris Benson

Christopher Benson

高级法律顾问

Read More
Jürgen Pölzl

Jürgen Pölzl, MBA

律师

Read More
作者
Chris Benson

Christopher Benson

高级法律顾问

Read More
Jürgen Pölzl

Jürgen Pölzl, MBA

律师

Read More

2018年4月30日

Exhaustion of Rights in Austria

Davidoff – “eye-catching” or exhausting?

The principle of exhaustion in trade mark law states that once goods have been marketed by the trade mark owner or with its consent in the EEA, the trade mark owner cannot prohibit the resale of the unaltered original products by a third party. While the trade mark owner loses control over further distribution channels, he retains control over the fact that his mark is used solely to identify his products. This regulation is intended to bring the trade mark exhaustion rights into line with the free movement of goods.

One of the world’s biggest perfume manufactures sells its products on the basis of a sub-license agreement using the word as well as the word and figurative mark „Davidoff”. Thus, authorized retailers within the selective distribution system can resell original perfumes as long as the condition of the perfumes has neither changed nor decreased in quality after their placement on the EEA market.

An Austrian dealer, although not part of the selective distribution system, sold original perfumes and used the word as well as the word and figurative mark “Davidoff”.

The perfume manufacturer claimed injunctive relief in the Austrian courts on the basis of the law against unfair competition. Furthermore it was claimed that the Austrian dealer used the word and figurative mark without a compelling reason. The "eye catching" highlighting of the word and figurative mark would unfairly attract the attention of the audience and the brand's reputation.

The lower courts rejected the request to make the Austrian dealer refrain from using the word and figurative mark "Davidoff" as an eye-catcher for commercial and advertising reasons, especially on its website.

The Austrian Supreme Court confirmed this saying that the product presentation of the Austrian dealer was appropriate and – particularly – given on a professional website therefore did not create the impression that an economic connection in the sense of a dealer relationship exist. Thus, the Austrian Supreme Court ruled that the principle of exhaustion applied with the effect that the Austrian dealer has not violated Davidoff’s trade mark rights.


Back to contents page

Call To Action Arrow Image

Latest insights in your inbox

Subscribe to newsletters on topics relevant to you.

Subscribe
Subscribe

Related Insights

品牌与广告业

Spanish Riding – can you register a Lipizzan?

2019年5月1日

作者

点击此处了解更多

What about your mood?

2018年11月30日

作者 Jürgen Pölzl, MBA 以及 Christopher Benson

点击此处了解更多
品牌与广告业

(No) proper use of Styrian pumpkin seed oil?

2018年10月2日

作者 Jürgen Pölzl, MBA 以及 Christopher Benson

点击此处了解更多