Court of justice CE 01 12 2011 n 446

EC Court justice section. I, December 1, 2011, n. 446


Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV / Lucheng Meijing Industrial Company Ltd. and others


Sources: Diritto e giustizia, 2011, Dec. 3 / De jure


EUROPEAN UNION - Ce - Industrial and Commercial


Summary: The Regulation of 22 December 1994, n. 3295 laying down measures concerning the entry into the Community, the export and re-export from the Community of goods infringing certain intellectual property rights, as amended by Commission Regulation of 25 January 1999, n. 241, and the Regulation of 22 July 2003, no. 1383, concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights must be interpreted as: goods from a third State and constituting an imitation of a product protected by a European Union trademark rights therein, or copy of a product protected by a copyright, a related right, from a model or drawing can not be classified as 'counterfeit goods' or 'pirated goods' within the meaning of those regulations simply because they are introduced into the customs territory of the Union under suspension; those goods, by contrast, may infringe the copyright, and therefore be classified as' counterfeit goods' or' pirated goods "where it is shown that they are intended to be marketed in the European Union, such evidence is provided, particularly where it appears that the goods were the subject of a sale to a customer of the Union or an offer for sale or an advertisement addressed to EU customers, or when evidenced by documents or correspondence relating to these goods is expected that the same be diverted to EU consumers, that the competent authority to rule on the merits could usefully examine the ' existence of a similar test and other elements of a violation of intellectual property right claimed, the customs authority which receives an application for action as soon as it has evidence to suspect the existence of the breach, must suspend the release or to detain the goods themselves. Among the above clues may include, inter alia, the fact that the destination of the goods is not declared as required under suspension arrangements require such a declaration, the lack of accurate or reliable information about the identity or address of the manufacturer or consignor of goods, lack of cooperation with customs authorities, or the discovery of documents or correspondence relating to the goods in question is likely to be suspected that the same may be diverted to the consumers of the European Union (the Court has thus pronounced in the case pertained to a razor from Shanghai, intercepted by the customs authorities and the Belgian suspected of being pirated: it was protected by models and Philips recordings, which boasted an exclusive right in intellectual property, had applied at the Antwerp Court arguing that the Chinese companies involved in the manufacture and marketing of electric razors stuck in customs had infringed its exclusive right).


( * )
( * )
( * )
I authorize the processing of my personal data in the way and for the purposes listed in the privacy statement.

( * )

In relation to Articles 23 and 24 of Legislative Decree no. 196/2003 and GDPR no. 2016/679

the processing of my personal information classified as sensitive for the purposes set out in those statements.