德国法院就零售连锁店 Aldi 销售 CALVIN KLEIN 和 JOOP 香水做出了一项有趣的裁决。
背景
Coty 是 CALVIN KLEIN 和 JOOP 商标的欧盟商标注册许可人！Coty对阿尔迪销售CALVIN KLEIN和JOOP! Coty 的问题不在于阿尔迪销售山寨产品，因为阿尔迪销售的商品实际上是正品。
科蒂的抱怨是，卡尔文-克林和乔普香水应该得到更多的尊重，应该在更高雅的环境中销售，而不是在阿尔迪商店里。不应该放在装有多媒体商品等其他物品的抽屉和玻璃容器中，也不应该放在 “廉价货仓 “中。简而言之，科蒂公司担心阿尔迪对卡尔文-克莱因（CALVIN KLEIN）和乔普（JOOP!
杜塞尔多夫一家法院同意这一反对意见。在该案中，法院认为名誉损害可以作为反对进一步销售和宣传商品的合法理由。在该案中，法院还指出，在涉及奢侈品时，转售商必须采取措施，确保其广告不会对商标的价值产生不利影响。杜塞尔多夫法院还提到了 Copad 奢侈品案 (C-59/08)，欧盟法院在该案中指出，可以想象，一个非常独特的奢侈品牌的所有者可能会反对在折扣店销售其商品。
杜塞尔多夫法院认为，这两个品牌享有一定的奢侈品光环。相比之下，阿尔迪的展示’缺乏独特性’。这有损于商标的声誉。科蒂在维护其香水奢侈形象方面的利益超过了阿尔迪在销售香水方面的利益。阿尔迪’通过销售知名品牌来改善其折扣店形象的利益必须让位于科蒂维护其商标形象的利益’。
原文：
There’s been an interesting court decision in Germany regarding the sale of CALVIN KLEIN and JOOP perfumes by the retail chain Aldi .
Background
Coty is the licensee of the EU trade mark registrations for the trade marks CALVIN KLEIN and JOOP! Coty was irked by the fact that Aldi was selling CALVIN KLEIN and JOOP! perfumes. Coty’s issue wasn’t that Aldi was selling knock-offs, because the goods that Aldi was selling were in fact genuine goods.
Coty’s complaint was that CALVIN KLEIN and JOOP! perfumes deserved more respect and should be sold in smarter surrounds, not in Aldi stores. Not in drawers and glass containers that contain other items such as multimedia goods nor in “bargain bins.” In short, Coty was concerned that the presentation and advertising of the CALVIN KLEIN and JOOP! perfumes by Aldi would tarnish the trade marks’ reputation.
A court in Dusseldorf agreed with the objection. It referred to the earlier EU case of Parfums Christian Dior v Evora (C-337/95), where the court held that damage to reputation can be a legitimate reason to oppose the further sale and advertising of goods. In that case, the court also said that when it comes to luxury goods, a reseller must take steps to ensure that its advertising does not adversely affect the value of the trade mark. The Dusseldorf court also referred to the luxury goods case of Copad (C-59/08), where the Court of Justice of the European Union said that the owner of a very exclusive luxury brand might conceivably object to any sales of its goods in discount stores.
The Dusseldorf court felt that the two brands enjoyed a certain luxury aura. In contrast, the presentation in Aldi ‘lacked exclusivity’. This was detrimental to the reputation of the trade marks. Coty’s interest in preserving the luxury image of its perfumes outweighed Aldi’s interest in selling the perfumes. The interest of Aldi in ‘improving its discounter image by selling prestigious brands must take a backseat against Coty’s interest to maintain the image of its trade mark’.
微信扫一扫 
