Editor's note: Schweppes International Company and Coca-Cola Group The company has applied for trademark registration in several EU countries "SCHWEPPES" . Schweppes International Corporate authorization Schweppes, S. A. The Company exercises the exclusive license to use its Spanish registered trademark. 2014 years 5 month, Schweppes, S. A. The company sued in the Spanish courts, action Red Paralela The company exports and distributes labels from Britain to Spain "SCHWEPPES" Bottled tonic water, Constitute a registered trademark in Spain "SCHWEPPES" tort. Read on for more details!

[background] Schweppes International Company and Coca-Cola Group The company has applied for trademark registration in several EU countries "SCHWEPPES" . Schweppes The company has registered the above trademarks in most Western European countries and Spain, while Coca-Cola Group The company registered the trademark in most Eastern European countries and the United Kingdom. Schweppes International Corporate authorization Schweppes, S. A. The Company exercises the exclusive license to use its Spanish registered trademark. 2014 years 5 month, Schweppes, S. A. The company sued in the Spanish courts, action Red Paralela The company exports and distributes labels from Britain to Spain "SCHWEPPES" Bottled tonic water, Constitute a registered trademark in Spain "SCHWEPPES" tort. Schweppes, S. A. Company considers that the goods at issue were not produced by or with Plaintiff's consent Coca-Cola Company production, And the manufacturer Coca-Cola There is also no connection between the company and the owner of the disputed Spanish trademark, Therefore, the defendant's behavior is illegal. Red Paralela Company argument, The goods in question were made in Britain, And the manufacturer Coca-Cola The company has registered trademarks in the UK "SCHWEPPES" , Therefore, the principle of exhaustion of trademark rights should be applied (There is a single market within the EU, To ensure the free flow of goods within the single market, Eu law requires that goods be placed on the market in the territory of a member State for the first time, The trademark rights attached thereto have been exhausted, The trademark owner shall not prohibit the subsequent sale and circulation of the goods in other member States of the single market of the European Union. Therefore, The accused maintained that his actions were lawful. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's goods were entering the Spanish market for the first time, Therefore, Its Spanish trademark rights have not been exhausted. The main issue in this case is "The right to free movement of goods in the single market within the EU" with "Multiple parallel countries of the member states registered trademark rights" Conflict between– Translator's note) . The defendant specifically stated that, Schweppes International company (That is, the licensor of the exclusive use of the plaintiff's Spanish trademark) Before and Coca-Cola The company reached a consensus, Agree to cooperate in the use of trademarks in the EU "SCHWEPPES" . The eighth Commercial Court in Barcelona suspended the case, Appeal to the European Court of Justice (Court of Justice) In the circumstances of this case, How to understand "Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union on the harmonisation and harmonisation of the laws of the Member States on trademarks (The first 2008/95/EC No) " The first 7. 1 article (Posterior quilt "European Union regulation (EU) 2015/2436 Number instruction" The first 15. 1 Strip substitution) , Make a preliminary determination.

[conclusion] First of all, Schweppes The Group believes that the European Court of Justice should not entertain the Spanish Court's application for a preliminary ruling. however, The European Court of Justice considers that the question of admissibility of the court's request for a preliminary decision is directly relevant to the dispute, The answer to this question is also relevant to the final decision of the hearing court on the dispute. The focus of the dispute in this case, The European Court of Justice stated that "European Union regulation 2008/95/EC Number instruction" The first 7. 1 Article shall be understood as: In a situation like this one, There is a trademark transfer agreement between a third party and the disputing trademark owner, Importing into that country later identical goods bearing identical trademarks, Not prohibited in this Article: ·The disputing trademark owner implements its trademark policy alone or in cooperation with the third party, Actively and continuously strengthen the brand's single global image; or, ·The owner of the disputed trademark has an economic relationship with the third party, For example, by coordinating commercial policies or signing agreements, we can jointly control the use of the trademark in the relevant territory. The function of a trademark is to ensure that the goods put on the market come from a single source, However, the trademark in dispute in this case is applied for registration in several countries and regions at the same time. There are several parallel national registered trademark rights, The owner of the disputed trademark continues to strengthen the image of the trademark as a single global trademark, Therefore, the basic function of distinguishing the source of the disputed trademark has been lost, Therefore, the disputing trademark right holder loses the right to prohibit other parallel trademark right holders from placing competing goods on the market. The European Court of Justice also noted, Because the two sides have economic ties, Can directly or indirectly decide which goods to attach the disputed trademark to and control the quality of the goods, Therefore, there is still a dispute over whether the trademark in question can realize its function of distinguishing the source, The disputed trademark owner's right to the trademark is not due to a third party/By the conduct of the defendant. The European Court of Justice concluded, It shall be up to the court of the accepting member State to analyze the above points one by one according to the specific circumstances of the case.

[comment] We support the decision of the European Court of Justice in this case. We think, Invoke trademark law "Right of prohibition (ius prohibendi) " It is not appropriate to settle a trademark dispute like this one, And contrary to the law.

compile: Liu Dan, The source of Aisabri Legal Counsel: Esabaril (ELZABURU)