Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T15:25:59.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parallel Importing: Unlawful Use of Trade Marks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Mark J Davison
Mark J Davison*
Affiliation:
Monash University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There has recently been considerable discussion of the law concerning parallel importing of copyright materials. Yet the legality of parallel importing of trade marked products has still to be decided at an appellate level in Australia despite a number of Australian single judge decisions2 on the issue.

The term ‘parallel importing’ can be applied to a number of different activities. However, it usually involves the application in an overseas country of an Australian trade mark (Australian in the sense of being physically identical to the Australian mark) to products manufactured overseas. The application of the mark and the subsequent sale of the product in the overseas country is undoubtedly lawful but some of the marked products are then imported into Australia without the express consent3 of the Australian registered proprietor. This importation in competition with the Australian registered proprietor is parallel importing.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 1990 , pp. 420 - 445
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Dr Sam Murumba in formulating the views expressed herein concerning the interpretation of the Trade Marks Act 1955 (Cth). The views themselves are nevertheless this author's.

References

1 Eg Copyright Law Review Committee, The Importation Provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 (1988); Prices Surveillance Authority Repon No 25: Inquiry into Book Prices - Final Report (1989); Prices Surveillance Authority Repon No 35: Inquiry inlo the Prices of Sound Recordings (1990).

2 Bailey v Bocaccio (1986) 6 IPR 279; Atari Inc and Futuretronics Australia Pty Ltd v Fairstar Electronics Pty Ltd (1983) 50 ALR 274; Delphic Wholesalers Pty Ltd v Elco Food Co Pty Ltd (1987) 8 IPR 545. But see Atari v Dick Smith (1980) 33 ALR 20 and FeNkr Australia Pty Ltd v Bevk (1989) 89 ALR 89.

3 One of the issues surrounding parallel imponing is whether and, if so, when consent to the imponation can be implied.

4 W D and HO Wills (Aust) LJd v Rothman's Ltd (1956) 94 CLR 182.

5 (1930) 47 RPC 28.

6 Ibid 34, quoting Lord Cranworth in Farina v Silverlock (1856) 6 De G M & G 214, 217.

7 Ibid 35.

8 Id.

9 Id.

10 Cf Spalding Bros v Gammage Ltd (1915) 32 RPC 273 (HL), 284-285.

11 Trade Marks Act 1905 (Eng).

12 F G Underhay, , Kerly on Trade Marks(4th ed 1913), 444Google Scholar; Cope v Evans (1874) LR 18 Eq 138; Beddow and Sons v Boyd (1887) 4 RPC 310.

13 Trade Marks Act 1955 (Cth) s 58(1), s 62(1), s 62(2); cf James Minifie and Co v Edwin Davey and Sons (1933) 49 CLR 349.

14 (1930) 47 RPC 28.

15 (1980) 33 ALR 20.

16 (1930) 47 RPC 28.

17 (1980) 6 FSR 85.

18 (1983) 50 ALR 274.

19 (1930) 47 RPC 28.

20 Mark Foy's Ltd v Davies Co-op and Co Ltd (1956) 95 CLR 190, 204 per Williams J, ; cf Shell Co of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (1963) 109 CLR 407, 422-423Google Scholar per Kitto J.

21 Atari Inc v Fairstar (1983) 50 ALR 274, 277.

22 Id.

23 Id.

24 Id.

25 (1982) 50 ALR 274.

26 (1986) 6 IPR 279.

27 (1987) 8 IPR 545.

28 In his judgment, McGarvie J expressed the view that consent to parallel importing by a registered trade mark proprietor would deprive the proprietor of an action against the importer, but a registered user could bring an action. This involves a seemingly insupportable suggestion that registered users may have greater righu than their registered proprietors.

29 (1989) 89 ALR 89.

30 (1986) 6 IPR 279

31 Id.

32 [1980] 6 FSR 85.

33 S Ricketson, , The Law of Intellectual Property (1984)Google Scholar; DR Shanahan, , Au.stralian Trade Mark Law and Practice (1982)Google Scholar; WR Comish, , Intellectual Property (1983)Google Scholar; Lord Hailsham, , Halsbury's Laws of England (4th ed 1984)Google Scholar; T A White, , R Jacob, , Kerly's Law of Trade Marks (11th ed 1983)Google Scholar.

34 (1983) 50 ALR 274.

35 (1930) 47 RPC 28.

36 Kerly's Law of Trade Marks,supra n 33.

37 (l930) 47 RPC 28.

38 (1980) 6 FSR 85.

39 Id.

40 Id.

41 Trade Marks Act 1938 (Eng) s 4(1).

42 Trade Marks Act 1938 (Eng) s 4(3)(a).

43 Revlon Inc v Cripps and Lee Ltd [1980] 6 FSR 85, 97.

44 Id.

45 Ibid 117.

46 [1980] 6 FSR 85.

47 (1986) 6 IPR 279.

48 (1980) 6 FSR 85.

49 (1986) 6 IPR 279.

50 (1933) 49 CLR 349.

51 Ibid 361.

52 (1930) 47 RPC 28.

53 Id.

54 The case was decided under the Trade Marks Act 1948 (Cth). Section 50 and s 53 of that Act were equivalent to s 58 and s 62 of the Trade Marks Act 1955 (Cth).

55 James Minifie and Co v Edwin Davey and Sons (1933) 49 CLR 349, 363.

56 Ibid 361.

57 (1986) 6 IPR 279.

58 (1963) 109 CI..R 407.

59 Trade Marks Act 1955 (Cth) s 6(1).

60 (1986) 6 IPR 279.

61 (1956) 94 CI..R 182.

62 Ibid 188.

63 Id.

64 (1967) 116 CI..R 254, 269.

65 (1956) 94 CLR 182.

66 Id.

67 (1986) 116 CLR 254.

68 (1956) 94 CLR 182.

69 Estex Clothing Manufacturers v Ellis and Goldstein Ltd (1967) 116 CLR 254, 269.

70 Ibid 271.

71 (1977) 137 CLR 670.

72 (1967) 116 CLR 254, 269.

73 Pioneer Kabushiki Kaisha v Reg of Trade Marks (1977) 137 CLR 670, 688 per Aickin J.

74 Id.

75 (1956) 94 CLR 182.

76 Pioneer Kabushiki Kaisha v Reg of Trade Marks (1977) 137 CLR 670, 688.

77 (1989) 89 ALR 89.

78 (1986) 6 IPR 279.

79 (1930) 47 RPC 28.

80 (1989) 89 ALR 89, 98.

81 Ibid 99-102.

82 Id.

83 (1986) 6 JPR 279.

84 Id.

85 [1980] 6 FSR 85.

86 (1989) 89 ALR 89.

87 (1987) 8 JPR 545.

88 (1989) 89 ALR 89.

89 (1930) 47 RPC 28.

90 (1967) 116 CLR 254.

91 Ibid 267.

92 S Ricketson, , supra n 33, 705-706Google Scholar.

93 (1967) 116 CLR 254.

94 Ibid 271-272 .

95 (1956) 94 CLR 182.

96 Id.

97 In this sense, the Coun was applying the decision in Aristoc Ltd v Rysta Ltd (1945) AC 84 which was to the effect that a trade mark ceases to be used as a trade mark once the marked product reaches the consumer.

98 Id.

99 Estex Clothing Manufacturers Pty Ltd v Ellis and Goldstein (1967) 116 CLR 254, 269.

100 Mark Foy's Ltd v Davies Co-op and Co Ltd (1956) 95 CLR 190, 204 per Williams J.

101 Eg Atari Inc v Fairstar (1983) 50 ALR 274, 277.

102 (1981) All ER 1057, [1981) 7 FSR 261.

103 Id.

104 Id.

105 Delphic Wholesalers Pty Ltd v Elco Food Co Pty Ltd (1987) 8 IPR 545, Fender Australia Pty Ltd v Bevk (1989) 89 ALR 89.

106 (1980) 6 FSR 85.

107 (1981) 1 WLR 485.

108 (1989) 89 ALR 89.

109 (1980) 6 FSR 85.

110 The endorsement read 'Revlon, London, Paris, New York'.

11 [1980] 6 FSR 85.

112 (1989) 89 ALR 89.

113 Ibid 102.

114 Id.

115 Jacobus Kadee v Gru.ndig (Nederland) NV (1965) 4 CKLR 40, 48, Colgate-Palmolive Ltd v Markwell Finance Ltd (1988) RPC 283.

116 Interstate Parcel Express Co Ltd v Time-Life International (Neder/ands) BV (1977) 138 CLR 534.

117 Eg Polydor Ltd v Harlequ.in Record Shop (1980) 6 FSR 362, 365-366, Barson Computers (NZ) Ltd v John Gilbert & Co Ltd (1985) 11 FSR 489.

118 (1977) 138 CLR 534.

119 This presumes the view of 'use' of a trade mane expressed in this article is accepted.

120 (1977) 138 CLR 534.

121 (1989) 89 ALR 89.

122 Ibid 103.

123 supra n 121.

124 Id.

125 [1983] RPC 315.

126 Ibid 323.

127 (1989) 89 ALR 89.

128 (1980) 6 FSR 85.

129 (1989) 89 ALR 89.

130 However, if a defence of consent to use can be 'created' at common law, there is no reason why a related defence of affixation cannot also be created. Both defences have statutory recognition in s 4(3)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 1938 (Eng).

131 (1980] 6 FSR 85.

132 (1983) 50 ALR 274.

133 [1980) 6 FSR 85.

134 (1989) 89 ALR 89.

135 Ibid 102. Italics added.

136 (1980) 6 FSR 85.

137 For the purposes of this aspect of the discussion, the “authorised importer” may be the Australian trade mark proprietor and identical to the overseas proprietor, its licensee or a conditional assignee as in Fender's case or an unconditional assignee of the overseas proprietor.

138 J S Gorelick, R K Little, , “The Case for Parallel Importation” (1986) 11 North Carolina Law Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation 205, 206-207Google Scholar; N Lewis, , “The Ten Commandments of Parallel Importation” (1986) 18 Law and Policy in International Business 217, 232-233Google Scholar.

139 M S Knoll, , “Gray - Market Imports : Causes, Consequences and Responses” (1986) 18 Law and Policy in International Business 145, 157Google Scholar.

140 Ibid 163.

141 Ibid 168-171.

142 JS Gorelick, R K Little, , supra n 138, 207Google Scholar.

143 R B Kelly, , “An Oveiview of the Influx of Gray Market Goods Into the United States” (1986) 11 North Carolina Law Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation 231, 246Google Scholar.

144 Re Queensland Co-operative Milling Association Ltd (1976) 25 FLR 169, 190.

145 M Brunt, , “Market Definition Issues in Australia and New Zealand” A paper delivered to the Commerce Act Workshop in Wellington, New Zealand, May 1988, 13Google Scholar.

146 MS Knoll, , supra n 139, 172Google Scholar.

147 United States v Guerlain Inc (1985) 761 F 2d 1552; Top Performance Motors Pty Lid v Ira Berle (Queensland) Pty Ltd (1975) 5 ALR 465; A Muratore, D Robertson, , “The Trade Maries Act 1955 and Parallel Imports” (1984) 7 UNSWU (Special Issue) 117, 138-141Google Scholar.

148 Eg Marie Lyons Pty Ltd v Bursill Sportsgear Pty Ltd (1987) 75 ALR 581, 589-590; Outboard Marine Australia Pty Ltd v Hecar Investments No 6 Pty Ltd (1982) 66 FLR 120, 130. See also RV Miller, , Annotated Trade Practices Act(10th ed 1989) 27Google Scholar.

149 Eg Rice v Norman Williams Co (1982)458 US 654, 661-662; ContiMntal 1V Inc v GTE Inc (1977) 433 US 36.

150 Ibid. Coalition lo Preserve the Integrity of American Trade Maries (COP/AT) v United States (1986) 790 F 2d 903, 916; Outboard Marine Australia Pty Ltd v Hecar Investments No 6 Ply Ltd (1982) 66 FLR 120.

151 See M Shubik, , Market Structure and Behaviour (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and R Posner, , Anti-trust Law: An Economic Perspective(1976)Google Scholar for a discussion of this concept.

152 See ss 37 and 38 of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).

153 See Prices Surveillance Authority op cit.

154 See Copyright Law Review Committee op cit 44-63; Prices Surveillance Authority Inquiry into Book Prices– Interim Report No 24, 12.

155 In particular, it may be necessary to limit the exemptions which intellectual property owners enjoy from the operation of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). See Copyright Law Review Committee supra n 1, 102. In addition, it may be necessary to address the problem of tacit price collusion. See R Posner, supra n 151 for a more detailed discussion of that issue.

156 (1980) 6 FSR 85.

157 (1986) 6 IPR 279.