In Budejovicky Budvar NP v Rudolf Ammersin GmbH, Case C-216/01, the European Court of Justice handed downwards a long, complex determination on the legal reason upon which a Czech brewer tin preclude the sale inwards Republic of Austria of AMERICAN BUD build beer. Budvar, a Czech brewer, exported BUDWEISER BUDVAR beer to Austria. Austrian companionship Ammersin sold Anheuser-Busch's AMERICAN BUD beer. In 1999 Budvar sought an gild that Ammersin halt using the discussion "Bud", or similar designations probable to crusade confusion, for beer. Budvar claimed that (i) AMERICAN BUD was confusingly similar to its ain prior Austrian merchandise marks; (ii) the utilization of AMERICAN BUD for a beer from anywhere but the Czechia breached a bilateral convention concluded betwixt Republic of Austria in addition to the sometime Czechoslovakia which listed "Bud" every bit a protected designation reserved alone for Czech products. The Austrian courtroom stayed the proceedings in addition to referred a number of questions to the ECJ concerning the interpretation of Arts 28, xxx in addition to 307 of the EC Treaty also every bit Council Regulation 2081/92 on geographical indications.
The ECJ ruled every bit follows:
(a) Regulation 2081/92 did non state that unproblematic indications of geographical source could non survive protected nether the constabulary of a Member State. Its aim was to ensure uniform pan-EU protection of geographical designations. However, the national protection of geographical designations which did non run across the requirement of registration nether the Regulation was governed past times national constabulary in addition to was confined to that territory.
(b) Since the Austrian national organisation of protection of geographical indications provided for absolute protection, it was irrelevant whether at that spot was whatever jeopardy of consumers beingness misled. The ambit of Regulation 2081/92 nevertheless depended on the nature of the designation, since it covered only designations of products where at that spot was a specific link betwixt their characteristics in addition to their geographic origin. "American Bud" was non a designation falling inside the ambit of the Regulation. Its protection nether the bilateral understanding was hence express to Austrian territory.
(c) Arts 28 EC (which prohibited barriers to intra-EU trade) in addition to xxx (which justified express exceptions to that prohibition) applied without distinction to products originating inwards the European Union in addition to to those admitted into gratuitous circulation inwards whatever of the Member States, whatever the existent source of such products.
(d) The prohibition on marketing "Bud" beer from countries other than the Czechia inwards Austria, nether the bilateral convention, could comport upon imports of "Bud" beer from other Member U.S. in addition to thus of constituting a barrier to intra-EU trade. Such a dominion was hence a mensurate having an consequence equivalent to a quantitative restriction inside the important of Art.28. The courts thus had to watch whether such a restriction was justified nether Art.30. Since the aim of the bilateral understanding was to ensure fair competition, such an objective could autumn inside the sphere of the protection of industrial in addition to commercial belongings inside Art.30 every bit long every bit "Bud" had not, either at the fourth dimension of the entry into strength of the understanding or subsequently, conk generic inwards the dry reason of origin. If the national courtroom found that "Bud" designated a portion or a house in addition to its protection was justified nether Art.30, its protection could survive extended to Austria.
(e) If the national courtroom found that "Bud" did non position whatever portion or place, the inquiry so arose whether the absolute protection of that name, every bit provided for past times the bilateral convention, constituted an obstruction to the gratuitous movement of goods. If so, without prejudice to whatever protection nether specific rights such every bit merchandise grade rights, the protection of "Bud" could non survive justified on the grounds of protection of industrial in addition to commercial belongings nether Art.30. If it were established that "Bud" contained no reference to the geographical source of the products it designated, Art.28 would preclude its protection past times agency of a bilateral understanding betwixt a Member State in addition to a non-member country.
(f) Rights in addition to obligations nether an understanding concluded betwixt a Member State in addition to a non-member dry reason before the engagement of accession of that Member State were non affected past times the EC Treaty in addition to the role of Art.307(1) was to build clear, inwards accordance amongst the principles of international law, that application of the EC Treaty did non comport upon the duty of the Member State concerned to honor the rights of non-member countries nether an before understanding in addition to to perform its obligations.
(g) It was for the national courtroom to ascertain whether, after the break-up of Czechoslovakia inwards 1993, both Republic of Austria in addition to the Czechia intended to apply the regulation of continuity of treaties to the bilateral instruments at issue.
(h) European Union Member U.S. had to stimulate got all appropriate steps to eliminate the incompatibilities betwixt a pre-EU accession agreements in addition to the EC Treaty. The national courtroom had to ascertain whether a possible incompatibility betwixt the EC Treaty in addition to the bilateral convention could survive avoided past times interpreting that convention inwards such a mode that it was consistent amongst Community law. If that proved impracticable, that State should stimulate got appropriate steps. Until incompatibilities were resolved, Art.307(1) permitted that State to conk on to apply such an understanding inwards so far every bit it contained obligations which remained binding on that State nether international law.
marvels at the complex legal knots that must survive untied before an Austrian innkeeper tin larn an response to the unproblematic inquiry "can I sell this tin of AMERICAN BUD inwards my bar?"
American Buds here, here and here
Remember Czechoslovakia? Click here and here for historical background
Other extinct countries here
The ECJ ruled every bit follows:
(a) Regulation 2081/92 did non state that unproblematic indications of geographical source could non survive protected nether the constabulary of a Member State. Its aim was to ensure uniform pan-EU protection of geographical designations. However, the national protection of geographical designations which did non run across the requirement of registration nether the Regulation was governed past times national constabulary in addition to was confined to that territory.
(b) Since the Austrian national organisation of protection of geographical indications provided for absolute protection, it was irrelevant whether at that spot was whatever jeopardy of consumers beingness misled. The ambit of Regulation 2081/92 nevertheless depended on the nature of the designation, since it covered only designations of products where at that spot was a specific link betwixt their characteristics in addition to their geographic origin. "American Bud" was non a designation falling inside the ambit of the Regulation. Its protection nether the bilateral understanding was hence express to Austrian territory.
(c) Arts 28 EC (which prohibited barriers to intra-EU trade) in addition to xxx (which justified express exceptions to that prohibition) applied without distinction to products originating inwards the European Union in addition to to those admitted into gratuitous circulation inwards whatever of the Member States, whatever the existent source of such products.
(d) The prohibition on marketing "Bud" beer from countries other than the Czechia inwards Austria, nether the bilateral convention, could comport upon imports of "Bud" beer from other Member U.S. in addition to thus of constituting a barrier to intra-EU trade. Such a dominion was hence a mensurate having an consequence equivalent to a quantitative restriction inside the important of Art.28. The courts thus had to watch whether such a restriction was justified nether Art.30. Since the aim of the bilateral understanding was to ensure fair competition, such an objective could autumn inside the sphere of the protection of industrial in addition to commercial belongings inside Art.30 every bit long every bit "Bud" had not, either at the fourth dimension of the entry into strength of the understanding or subsequently, conk generic inwards the dry reason of origin. If the national courtroom found that "Bud" designated a portion or a house in addition to its protection was justified nether Art.30, its protection could survive extended to Austria.
(e) If the national courtroom found that "Bud" did non position whatever portion or place, the inquiry so arose whether the absolute protection of that name, every bit provided for past times the bilateral convention, constituted an obstruction to the gratuitous movement of goods. If so, without prejudice to whatever protection nether specific rights such every bit merchandise grade rights, the protection of "Bud" could non survive justified on the grounds of protection of industrial in addition to commercial belongings nether Art.30. If it were established that "Bud" contained no reference to the geographical source of the products it designated, Art.28 would preclude its protection past times agency of a bilateral understanding betwixt a Member State in addition to a non-member country.
(f) Rights in addition to obligations nether an understanding concluded betwixt a Member State in addition to a non-member dry reason before the engagement of accession of that Member State were non affected past times the EC Treaty in addition to the role of Art.307(1) was to build clear, inwards accordance amongst the principles of international law, that application of the EC Treaty did non comport upon the duty of the Member State concerned to honor the rights of non-member countries nether an before understanding in addition to to perform its obligations.
(g) It was for the national courtroom to ascertain whether, after the break-up of Czechoslovakia inwards 1993, both Republic of Austria in addition to the Czechia intended to apply the regulation of continuity of treaties to the bilateral instruments at issue.
(h) European Union Member U.S. had to stimulate got all appropriate steps to eliminate the incompatibilities betwixt a pre-EU accession agreements in addition to the EC Treaty. The national courtroom had to ascertain whether a possible incompatibility betwixt the EC Treaty in addition to the bilateral convention could survive avoided past times interpreting that convention inwards such a mode that it was consistent amongst Community law. If that proved impracticable, that State should stimulate got appropriate steps. Until incompatibilities were resolved, Art.307(1) permitted that State to conk on to apply such an understanding inwards so far every bit it contained obligations which remained binding on that State nether international law.
marvels at the complex legal knots that must survive untied before an Austrian innkeeper tin larn an response to the unproblematic inquiry "can I sell this tin of AMERICAN BUD inwards my bar?"
American Buds here, here and here
Remember Czechoslovakia? Click here and here for historical background
Other extinct countries here
Komentar
Posting Komentar