Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-25-Speech-3-209"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020925.10.3-209"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, despite having subscribed to the Mayer Report, I was somewhat surprised by the question put to the Commission, since the prescribed timeframe for carrying out these studies was not respected. What is more, I am convinced that the transition from a Community-wide exhaustion of trademarks to an international exhaustion might have negative effects from both an economic and legal perspective. Neither the NERA study nor that carried out by the Economist Intelligence Unit proved that the international exhaustion of rights system has a significant long-term effect on prices for the consumer.
The consumer would not benefit from such a change and I have here an article published recently in the
on 4 September, pointing out that Tesco, which is well-known for its support of the international exhaustion of rights system, has not passed on considerable savings made through parallel imports to the consumer.
Furthermore, if we wish to adopt international exhaustion, we must amend not only the 1988 Directive, but also the 1993 Regulation establishing the Community trade mark and laying down the rule of Community exhaustion. It would be inconceivable for the international exhaustion to apply to the national trade mark and the Community trade mark to be exempt. A solution of this kind would certainly spell the end of national trade marks which are highly valued by Member States and which are needed by businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, in the frequent cases when a protection throughout EU territory is, in their view, worthless and costly.
More than ever in a context of heightened globalisation, we must affirm the economic importance of the European Union by integrating the single market and attaching more value to our creativity. Neither the United States nor Japan has adopted international exhaustion of trade marks. If the European Union unilaterally decided to transfer to this legal system, it would introduce distorted competition between the European Union and third countries. Trademark protection is crucial for the European economy and for consumer safety. A trade mark is the guarantee of a product’s authenticity and quality. Furthermore, the current system allows us to better protect ourselves from counterfeiting; since parallel imports pose a major risk as they use the same channels as pirated products and counterfeits.
A question was raised by Mr Mayer, but I, on the other hand, am thinking about another question which I believe to be crucial: why has the European Union not yet signed the Madrid Protocol, which would enable us to provide an integrated, efficient, global and transparent trademark protection system? I am therefore hoping and praying that the European Union will sign this protocol."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Evening Standard"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples