Editor's note: Several subsidiaries of the L 'Oreal group sued together, Sue OUTLETBELLEZA The website sells several authentic perfumes and cosmetics to which the plaintiffs own trademarks without permission, Violated the plaintiff's trademark rights. Primary telling scale, The act of the defendant in selling the products of the aforesaid brand outside the sales network designated by the aforesaid brand, It damaged the plaintiff's brand of luxury and luxury, Exceptions to the principle of exhaustion of trademark rights shall apply.

[background] Several subsidiaries of the L 'Oreal group sued together, Sue OUTLETBELLEZA The website sells several authentic perfumes and cosmetics to which the plaintiffs own trademarks without permission, Violated the plaintiff's trademark rights. Primary telling scale, The act of the defendant in selling the products of the aforesaid brand outside the sales network designated by the aforesaid brand, It damaged the plaintiff's brand of luxury and luxury, Exceptions to the principle of exhaustion of trademark rights shall apply. Read on for the conclusion of the case! The plaintiff's claim was upheld in both the first and second trials. The defendant appealed to the Spanish Supreme Court on the application of the law in this case, The Supreme Court ruled in part in favor of the defendants' claims.

[conclusion] The Supreme Court first clarified: In this case, the plaintiff merely proved that the defendant sold the goods outside the manufacturer's designated distribution network, Even if it's online, It is not sufficient to meet the conditions stipulated in the exception of exhaustion of trademark rights. besides, The plaintiff should also prove that the defendant sold the goods in a way that would damage the image of the trademark. accordingly, The Supreme Court analyzed the facts of the case. Find out first, (The defendant's approach to sales) Sellers don't have physical storefronts, No advisory services are provided, And because sales are conducted online, The fact that consumers cannot try products before they decide to buy them. Supreme Court affirmation, As required by the plaintiff of the seller, It effectively means that sellers without physical storefronts are barred from selling the products involved online. Therefore, Contrary to the conclusion of the second judgment on this point, The Supreme Court determines after analyzing the product attributes of the products involved, The above requirements are not justified, Has constituted an undue restriction on free competition. For the above reasons, The Supreme Court held that the facts of the case did not constitute a valid reason to exclude the application of the exhaustion of trademark rights principle. Therefore, The Supreme Court affirmed part of the lower court's conclusion——The defendant infringed on the plaintiff's trademark rights, The reason was the way the defendants sold the brands involved "Does not meet the conditions of qualified sales network" , And requires defendants to immediately cease and desist from further sales and recall to "Not in compliance with the Plaintiff's sales network Management Rules" The way to sell goods, etc——Too general, The judgment overturned that part of the second judgment. but, For the appellate court decision (Exceptions should be used) Other facts based on, Including the name of the website involved, Commodity display mode (Alphabetical order only, And display side by side with other low-end products) , Scarcity of commodities, Commodity inventory is small, Lack of up-to-date goods and no return allowed, The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff's trademark reputation would be adversely affected objectively, Damage the luxury and high-end image of the goods. So, The Supreme Court decided to uphold the Court of Appeal's finding that the case meets the requirements for the exhaustion of trademark rights exception, The plaintiff has the right to request to stop the continued sale of Plaintiff's products on the defendant's website and other judgment conclusions. To sum up, The judgment of the Supreme Court amended the operative part of the second instance judgment as follows: " (b) Determination of the court, The manner in which Defendant sold Plaintiff's branded goods on the two websites operated by Defendant infringed Plaintiff's exclusive trademark rights, Therefore, Judgment of this court: The defendant accepts and abides by the above conclusions; In view of the defendant's sales method, the following facts exist: This parameter is used in domain names "outletbelleza" Web site, The website provides an alphabetical search system only, Plaintiff's goods are shown to be out of stock, Small inventory, Lack of up-to-date merchandise, no returns allowed, etc, It damaged the image of the plaintiff's luxury brand, The Defendant shall, therefore, immediately cease sales and recall from the market the Plaintiffs branded Goods sold in such manner. " [comment] The findings of the Spanish Supreme Court in this case and the European Court of Justice (European Court of Justice) The cases on this issue are generally consistent. The question is that Plaintiff's sales requirement effectively precludes the possibility that the seller may sell Plaintiff's goods outside of a physical store, The Supreme Court is modeled after the European Court of Justice 2011 years 10 month 13 sunin "Pierre Fabre" case (Case number: C-439/09) The principles affirmed in the judgment. Although the European Court of Justice's judgment indicates that the principle is derived from a review of the relevant conditions in terms of their antitrust nature, The Supreme Court held that the principle also applies to the exhaustion of rights exception. In addition, The problem of identifying the image of luxury brand and the damage to its reputation, This case refers to the European Court of Justice 1997 years 11 month 4 sunin "Parfums Christian Dior" case (Case number: C-337/95) The parameter criteria determined in the judgment. When the above parameters apply, The Supreme Court found it necessary to correct the overly general fact-finding portion of the lower court's decision in this case, It is specified that the reasons why the exception to the exhaustion of rights principle can be applied in this case are, The defendant improperly marketed the plaintiff's goods.

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