首页> 外文期刊>IIC:International review of intellectual property and competition law >Creation of Technical Conditions for Use or Infringement - The Meanders of the Warehouse Keeper's Liability in Light of CJEU Judgment C-567/18 Coty Germany
【24h】

Creation of Technical Conditions for Use or Infringement - The Meanders of the Warehouse Keeper's Liability in Light of CJEU Judgment C-567/18 Coty Germany

机译:建立使用或侵权的技术条件 - 仓库守护者责任的含义,根据CJEU判决C-567/18 Coty德国

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

One form of industrial property right infringement is stocking for the purpose of offering or marketing. This form of infringement appears both in EU legal acts on trademarks or designs, as well as in national regulations, including those concerning patents. What is specific to stocking when compared to other activities comprising the stipulated exclusivity of the holder of industrial property rights is the fact that the literal meaning of "stocking" does not explain whether the infringing party or the warehouse keeper is the entity that places the goods in storage. The structure of industrial property rights as absolute rights would theoretically permit the view that the law is violated by both the entity that accepts the goods for storage and the entity that places such goods in storage. To determine if there is an infringement, it must be established what the goods being stocked are further intended for. It is not without significance that the finding of an infringement of industrial property rights does not depend on fault or awareness. From the point of view of the industrial property law regime, it is difficult to find arguments against this understanding of infringement by stocking. Since the offeror of goods infringing industrial property rights may be held liable even if the goods have not yet been manufactured, it is conceivable that the entity accepting such goods for stocking is also liable. This interpretation of the concept of stocking would certainly correspond to the absolute nature of liability for infringement. In a recent judgment the CJEU confirmed that the warehouse keeper who, on behalf of a third party, stores goods which infringe trademark rights only creates the technical conditions for trademark use by this third party provided that the warehouse keeper is not aware of that infringement. The CJEU also confirmed that only the person who decides about the purpose of storing the goods can be treated as an infringer. However, the CJEU did not respond to the question regarding whether the warehouse keeper could be treated as an infringer if it pursues the aims of storing the goods at the request of the entity that put the goods into storage.
机译:一种形式的工业产权侵权是为了提供或营销的目的。这种形式的侵权似乎都在欧盟法律行为上关于商标或设计,以及国家法规,包括专利人士。与包括工业产权持有人的规定排他性的其他活动相比的具体股票是事实上,“袜子”的字面意义不解释侵权方或仓库守护者是否是占用货物的实体在存储中。理论上,工业产权的结构理论上将允许认为法律侵犯了储存货物的实体和将这些货物存入的实体侵犯。确定是否存在侵权行为,必须建立库存的货物进一步适用于此。没有意义的是,寻求侵权工业产权并不依赖于过错或意识。从工业物业法律制度的角度来看,很难通过股票来寻找对侵权的理解的论据。由于侵犯工业产权的货物的要约人可能会持怀疑责任,即使尚未制造商品,可以想到接受该类库存货物的实体也有责任。这种对库存概念的解释肯定对应于侵权责任的绝对性质。在最近的审判中,CJEU证实,仓库守门员代表第三方储存侵犯商标权的商品只会为该第三方创造商标使用的技术条件,规定是仓库守护者不知道侵权行为。 CJEU还确认只有决定储存货物的目的的人可以被视为侵犯者。然而,如果仓库守门员在追求将货物纳入储存的实体的要求中申请储存货物的目的,CJEU没有回应仓库守门员作为侵权人的问题。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号