Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-02-Speech-2-302"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011002.14.2-302"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I would firstly like to congratulate Mr Mayer on the report he is presenting today. I am perfectly aware that it is not the report he would have liked to approve and, although it is little consolation, I would like to say that I also would have preferred the report finally approved by Parliament to have been the one Mr Mayer initially drew up.
Despite the powerful interests concerned with preventing the world trade in trade mark products, the unusual report by a consulting company which states that consumers would not benefit immediately from the acquisition of goods at lower prices and the lukewarm position of the Commission which does not seem interested in seeking a solution to a problem which has a very negative effect on European consumers, the rapporteur, Mr Mayer, has been able to produce a report urging persistence in the quest for formulae which prevent manufacturers of trade mark products from maintaining excessively high prices on European markets.
When, in July 1998, the Court of Justice issued the Silhouette judgment, it caused great commotion in countries which recognised the principle of international exhaustion of the trade mark. Either by law, as in Sweden for example, or by jurisprudence, as in my country, Spain.
Legally, the judgment is unassailable from the moment that it states that Article 7 of the Trade Mark Directive, by establishing the principle of Community exhaustion, indirectly establishes the prohibition of international exhaustion. But this is a legalistic interpretation which does not prevent the recognition, as the judgment does, of the harmful effects for consumers of the fact that owners of trade marks can prevent the import of their own products if they originate from third countries.
The arguments used by those people who defend the prohibition of the international exhaustion of trade marks – combating counterfeiting, maintaining the prestigious image of goods, diversion of income from the manufacturer to the importer – are at odds with a reality which is demonstrated in the documents produced by the rapporteur.
When parallel imports from third countries are allowed, the prices of trade mark products drop. The information provided on price increases in Germany, when the reform of German law prevented international exhaustion, is conclusive. And although my experience is of little scientific value, I must point out that I have been able to note how, in the United States, a product which in Spain costs me EUR 10, costs me just EUR 1.5.
For all these reasons and despite the reservations involved in finding a consensus in favour of a more ambitious resolution, it is important that the Commission takes the initiative in favour of consumers and brings forward proposals to strengthen the world market, removing barriers to trade, which are not just customs barriers, but which often consist of anti-competitive practices by companies whose aim is to defend their own profits."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples