Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-02-Speech-2-305"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011002.14.2-305"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Madam President, this is an important subject and has been discussed at various places and at various times. It is important that the exhaustion regime for Trade marks which the Community applies provides for a proper balance between the interest of consumer prices and protection of Trade mark rights. It has been stated by those who advocate a change to the Community-wide exhaustion regime, that a unilateral change to international exhaustion of Trade mark rights would have a significant impact on consumer prices.
The Commission is not convinced that this would be the case. According to the Nera study carried out by a consultancy firm based in London which was submitted to the Commission in February 1999, prices under international exhaustion would probably not be very different from those that are currently in force. Mr Berenguer Fuster and the rapporteur have referred to alleged price increases in Germany of films, perfume and cameras. As soon as this became known, the sectors concerned supplied statistics to the Commission to show that prices have not increased as was claimed, but have remained the same or in some cases even decreased. The purported evidence concerning Germany is not what it seems to be and, in fact, supports the case that the Commission has put forward and not the case in favour of international exhaustion.
There has also been a price study carried out by the Swedish and the UK governments. It is very interesting to note, and significant for this debate, that of the items where comparisons between the European Union and the United States were possible, the cheapest market was often within the European Union. For some products, the United States was even the most expensive market. Moreover, there were considerable price differences between Member States. In general, prices in Germany and France were lower than in the UK and in Sweden. Those differences exist within the European Union where there is regional exhaustion for Trade mark rights and not international exhaustion. In other words, for all Member States of the European Union the same exhaustion regime applies yet there is a 40% price difference in electronic goods between Sweden and Germany. This certainly goes to show that the internal market is not performing as it should be, but it also shows that the differences in prices have nothing to do with whether the exhaustion regime is regional or international.
The price differences within the European Union usually exceed the price differences between EU Member States and the United States. In other words, the arguments in favour of the thesis that international exhaustion would lead to a decrease in prices is very tenuous. In fact the Commission does not believe that evidence at all. Furthermore, I should like to add that the price element is only one aspect of the exhaustion issue. It is also very important to consider the legitimate interest of Trade mark holders in their home markets. For many companies the Trade mark is their most valuable asset and that is not something we should take lightly. Trade marks are also of value to consumers because they represent a sign of quality.
The Commission decided in May 2000 that there is no reason, at least for the time being, to propose any change to the current regime. The Commission considers that there is now a proper balance between the interests at stake and that the current Community-wide exhaustion regime is an appropriate way to protect the legitimate rights of Trade mark holders. The Commission has taken due note, obviously, of Mr Mayer's report and of the long and difficult discussions in the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market. Many arguments have been put forward for and against a change of regime. The Commission recognised all those arguments from previous discussions in other fora.
All the aspects mentioned have been thoroughly studied and analysed by the Commission services and in my view no new elements have been put forward which would require further examination or which would give the Commission reason to reconsider its decision. Having said this, the Commission intends to monitor the question of exhaustion closely and will certainly take any action necessary should new and important reasons emerge to consider abandoning the current exhaustion regime. In the meantime, the Commission is, of course, willing to share with Parliament our experiences concerning cases of possible abuse of Trade mark rights but in order to make the report more useful and balanced the Commission intends to take all relevant elements into consideration."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples