Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-25-Speech-3-210"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020925.10.3-210"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would firstly like to congratulate the group which has put the question and in particular Mr Mayer, since it is very timely. I also thank the Commissioner for his reply.
I believe that, although the time limit stated in last year’s European Parliament resolution has not come to an end, to monitor it and stay informed, to continue the debate, is our obligation as Members of Parliament.
During the debate on the Mayer Report last year, we had the opportunity to witness – as is also happening today, through the previous speakers – the difficulties involved in achieving a broad majority view on this sensitive issue, both in this house and in society.
I believe that the problem is not so much with the trade marks directive but with the interpretation contained in the Silhouette judgment on Article 7 of the trade marks directive. Before that judgment, there were countries where, either through legislation – as in Sweden – or through case-law – as in Spain – the principle of the international exhaustion of trade marks was permitted, but following that judgment it was clearly prohibited.
While it is true that there are many conflicting interests, it is also the case that we must attend to the interests of the consumer and it is unthinkable that European consumers, as a result of an excessive interpretation of trade mark law, which goes beyond the principle that the trade mark is restricted to designating the origin of a product, should not be able to acquire products at lower prices.
The issue cannot be resolved, as some reports say, exclusively by applying the Treaty’s competition rules, for the simple reason that the abuse of a dominant position is only applied to those who have a dominant position in a certain significant market, and we all know that, with these types of products protected by a trade mark, it is very unlikely that a trade mark would warrant being classified as dominant.
So far the Commission – we await these reports which it has requested – has mentioned the Nera Report, which guaranteed that the recognition of international exhaustion would not affect prices beyond 2%. I do not agree with this conclusion and, while personal experience is of little worth, I can give endless examples of how products which in other countries or in my own country, when international exhaustion was allowed, could be sold at significantly lower prices, since the Silhouette judgment can only be found on official distribution networks and at considerably higher prices.
With regard to the Nera Report, the Commission is undoubtedly aware of the work done by the Swedish competition authority, which reaches radically different conclusions to those of the Nera Report and those maintained today by Mrs Fourtou.
I therefore believe that the time has come to invite the Commission to present the report, as the European Parliament previously requested. When it does, I believe we will once again have the opportunity to insist on this debate."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples