Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Private Imports of Infringing Goods – How does the Manufacturing Fiction Apply?

Nordin, Sofia LU (2013) JURM02 20132
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Den 8 november 2011 gav den danska Sjö- och Handelsrätten en dom i Rolex
III som resulterade i en del osäkerhet angående det rättsliga klimatet kring
intellektuella rättigheter, i synnerhet angående privata importer av varor som
gör intrång i sådana rättigheter. Avgörandet i Rolex III är kontroversiellt
eftersom det förlitar sig på användandet av en legal fiction på ett sådant sätt
att avgörandets legala riktighet kan ifrågasättas. Som sådant är det ett
intressant fall att studera ytterligare, bland annat för att försöka förutse vilka
konsekvenser avgörandet kan komma att ha för Unionens medborgare.
De centrala omständigheterna i Rolex III var att en dansk medborgare
importerade en varumärkesförfalskad och piratkopierad Rolex... (More)
Den 8 november 2011 gav den danska Sjö- och Handelsrätten en dom i Rolex
III som resulterade i en del osäkerhet angående det rättsliga klimatet kring
intellektuella rättigheter, i synnerhet angående privata importer av varor som
gör intrång i sådana rättigheter. Avgörandet i Rolex III är kontroversiellt
eftersom det förlitar sig på användandet av en legal fiction på ett sådant sätt
att avgörandets legala riktighet kan ifrågasättas. Som sådant är det ett
intressant fall att studera ytterligare, bland annat för att försöka förutse vilka
konsekvenser avgörandet kan komma att ha för Unionens medborgare.
De centrala omständigheterna i Rolex III var att en dansk medborgare
importerade en varumärkesförfalskad och piratkopierad Rolex klocka från
Kina som sedermera beslagtogs och förstördes utan ersättning, vilket var en
följd av avgörandet från den danska Sjö- och Handelsrätten. Då säljaren
befann sig i Kina medförde det svårigheter för innehavaren att rikta sitt
anspråk mot säljaren, och det var på grund av denna omständighet som man
istället riktade anklagelser mot konsumenten. Den danska domstolen fann att
köparen av den förfalskade Rolex klockan var skyldig till intrång i Rolex
registrerade intellektuella rättigheter och att han därför tvingades acceptera att
klockan förstördes utan ersättning för sin förlust. Detta avgörande beslutades
trots att det faktum att klockan hade importerats för privat bruk var obestritt.
Domstolen kringgick kravet att bevisa att köpet var av kommersiell natur
genom att använda framställningsfiktionen (som innebär att de förutsatte en
hypotes om att klockans produktion tagit plats i Danmark), ett resonemang
vars giltighet är det som primärt undersökt i denna avhandling.
Den praxis som fanns vid tidpunkten för avgörande i Rolex III stipulerade ett
krav att kommersiell användning skulle bevisas för att en domstol skulle
kunna besluta att de handlingar som var föremål för granskning utgjorde
intrång. Dessutom, eftersom Danmark är en medlemsstat, måste dansk
lagstiftning om intellektuella rättigheter vara harmoniserad med den
Europeiska Unionens lagstiftning och ska tolkas i enighet med den
prejudicerande praxis som finns tillgänglig från den Europeiska Unionens
Domstol.
Eftersom Rolex III fallet överklagades, och en slutgiltig dom väntas från
danska Högsta Domstolen sent 2013 efter att en preliminär dom har levererats
av EU-domstolen, syftar denna avhandling till att ytterligare klargöra de
rättsliga spörsmål som finns kring fallet för att bedöma riktigheten av det nu
föreliggande avgörandet. Dessutom ger denna uppsats förhoppningsvis
läsaren möjligheten att kunna bilda en åsikt kring hur den slutgiltiga domen
bör se ut. (Less)
Abstract
On November 8th 2011 the Danish Maritime and Commercial Court
pronounced a ruling on the Rolex III case which caused uncertainty regarding
the legal climate of intellectual property law, specifically the importation of
infringing goods for private use. As the Rolex III case is quite a controversial
ruling, relying on the use of legal fiction in such a way that its legal validity is
questionable, it is interesting to examine it further and try to foresee what
consequences the ruling might have for Community citizens.
In essence, the facts of the Rolex III case was that a Danish citizen imported a
counterfeit and pirated Rolex watch from China which was subsequently
seized and destroyed without compensation upon the ruling of the... (More)
On November 8th 2011 the Danish Maritime and Commercial Court
pronounced a ruling on the Rolex III case which caused uncertainty regarding
the legal climate of intellectual property law, specifically the importation of
infringing goods for private use. As the Rolex III case is quite a controversial
ruling, relying on the use of legal fiction in such a way that its legal validity is
questionable, it is interesting to examine it further and try to foresee what
consequences the ruling might have for Community citizens.
In essence, the facts of the Rolex III case was that a Danish citizen imported a
counterfeit and pirated Rolex watch from China which was subsequently
seized and destroyed without compensation upon the ruling of the Danish
Maritime and Commercial Court. Since the seller was located in China, it was
difficult for the proprietor of the Rolex trademark to make claims against the
seller, which is why the consumer was targeted instead. The Danish Court
found that the buyer of the fake Rolex watch was guilty of infringing Rolex’s
registered intellectual property rights and that he therefore had to accept that
the watch should be destroyed without compensation for his losses. This
ruling was made in spite of the fact that it was undisputed that the purchase
was made for private use. The Court circumvented the requirement of proving
use in the course of trade by means of the manufacturing fiction (i.e. by
hypothesising that the manufacture of the watch had taken place in Denmark),
a reasoning whose validity is the primary subject of study in this thesis.
The case law existing at the time of the Rolex III verdict stipulated a
requirement that use in the course of trade be proven in order to support that
the actions in question constituted infringement. Furthermore, as a Member
State of the European Union, the Danish legislation on the area of intellectual
property rights is harmonized with the legislation of the Community and
should be interpreted so as to be compatible with the ECJ case law.
As the Rolex III case was appealed, and a final ruling is expected from the
Danish Supreme Court late in 2013 after a preliminary ruling has been given
by the ECJ, this thesis aims at further clarifying the legal issues revolving
around the case so as to determine the legality of the existing ruling.
Hopefully this clarification will help the reader to form an opinion as to what
the final ruling should be. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Nordin, Sofia LU
supervisor
organization
course
JURM02 20132
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Immaterialrätt, infringing goods, personal use, Rolex III.
language
English
id
4226905
date added to LUP
2014-01-21 06:39:37
date last changed
2014-01-21 06:39:37
@misc{4226905,
  abstract     = {On November 8th 2011 the Danish Maritime and Commercial Court
pronounced a ruling on the Rolex III case which caused uncertainty regarding
the legal climate of intellectual property law, specifically the importation of
infringing goods for private use. As the Rolex III case is quite a controversial
ruling, relying on the use of legal fiction in such a way that its legal validity is
questionable, it is interesting to examine it further and try to foresee what
consequences the ruling might have for Community citizens.
In essence, the facts of the Rolex III case was that a Danish citizen imported a
counterfeit and pirated Rolex watch from China which was subsequently
seized and destroyed without compensation upon the ruling of the Danish
Maritime and Commercial Court. Since the seller was located in China, it was
difficult for the proprietor of the Rolex trademark to make claims against the
seller, which is why the consumer was targeted instead. The Danish Court
found that the buyer of the fake Rolex watch was guilty of infringing Rolex’s
registered intellectual property rights and that he therefore had to accept that
the watch should be destroyed without compensation for his losses. This
ruling was made in spite of the fact that it was undisputed that the purchase
was made for private use. The Court circumvented the requirement of proving
use in the course of trade by means of the manufacturing fiction (i.e. by
hypothesising that the manufacture of the watch had taken place in Denmark),
a reasoning whose validity is the primary subject of study in this thesis.
The case law existing at the time of the Rolex III verdict stipulated a
requirement that use in the course of trade be proven in order to support that
the actions in question constituted infringement. Furthermore, as a Member
State of the European Union, the Danish legislation on the area of intellectual
property rights is harmonized with the legislation of the Community and
should be interpreted so as to be compatible with the ECJ case law.
As the Rolex III case was appealed, and a final ruling is expected from the
Danish Supreme Court late in 2013 after a preliminary ruling has been given
by the ECJ, this thesis aims at further clarifying the legal issues revolving
around the case so as to determine the legality of the existing ruling.
Hopefully this clarification will help the reader to form an opinion as to what
the final ruling should be.},
  author       = {Nordin, Sofia},
  keyword      = {Immaterialrätt,infringing goods,personal use,Rolex III.},
  language     = {eng},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Private Imports of Infringing Goods – How does the Manufacturing Fiction Apply?},
  year         = {2013},
}