References
- Abbott, F. M.; Cottier, T. & Gurry, F. (2011), International Intellectual Property in an Integrated World Economy, 2nd ed., New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
- Altman, L. & Pollack, M. (2015), Callmann on Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies, 4th ed., Database updated December 2015 (Available on Westlaw).
- Apollinaris Co. Ltd. v. Scherer [1886], District Court of New York, Second Circuit, 27 F. (1886) 18.
- Avgoustis, I. (2012), ‘Parallel imports and exhaustion of trade mark rights: should steps be taken towards an international exhaustion regime?’ European Intellectual Property Review, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 108-121.
- Bently, L. & Sherman, B. (2009), Intellectual Property Law, 3rd ed., New York: Oxford University Press.
- Birstonas, R. & Klimkeviciute, D. (2014), ‘Problematic aspects of the application of the principle of exhaustion of trademark rights in the EU (EEA) and of its interrelation with contract law: possible solutions?’ European Scientific Journal, vol. 10, no. 19, pp. 72-100.
- Bonadio, E. (2011), ‘Parallel imports in a global market: should a generalised international exhaustion be the next step?’ European Intellectual Property Review, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 153-161.
- Calboli, I. (2002), ‘Trademark exhaustion in the European Union: Community-wide or international? The saga continues,’ Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, vol. 6, pp. 47-90.
- — (2011), ‘Market integration and (the limits of) the first sale rule in North American and European trademark law,’ Santa Clara Law Review, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 1241-1282.
- — (2012), ‘Reviewing the (shrinking) principle of trademark exhaustion in the European Union (ten years later),’ Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, vol. 16, pp. 258-281.
- Centrafarm v. Winthrop [1974], Centrafarm BV and Adriaan de Peijper v. Winthrop BV, CJEU 31.10.1974, Case 16/74.
- Chen, H.-L. (2009), ‘Gray marketing: does it hurt the manufacturers?’ The Atlantic Economic Journal, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 27-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11293-008-9154-6
- Cheng, F.-C. (2012), ‘Gaining experience from a case analysis of the parallel importation of trademark goods in the United States,’ NTUT Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Management, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 175-188.
- Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Current as of 8 June 2015.
- Cook, T. (2010), EU Intellectual Property Law, New York: Oxford University Press.
- Cornish, W. R.; Llewelyn, D. & Aplin, T. (2010), Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 7th ed., London: Sweet & Maxwell Limited.
- Craig, P. & Búrca, G. D. (2015), EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials, 6th ed., New York: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198714927.001.0001
- Davidoff [2001], Zino Davidoff SA v. A & G Imports Ltd and Levi Strauss & Co. and Others v. Tesco Stores Ltd and Others, CJEU 20.11.2001, Joined cases C-414/99 to C-416/99.
- EC (1988), First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (First TM Directive).
- — (1999), Exhaustion of Trade Mark Rights: Working Document from the Commission Services, Commission Working Paper on Trademark Exhaustion, Internal Market Council, 21 June 1999, pp. 15-16. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/docs/tm/exhaust_en.pdf [accessed 2 Aug 2016]
- — (2008), Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (EU TM Directive).
- — (2015), Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (New EU TM Directive).
- EFTA (n.d.), Information about the EEA. Retrieved from www.efta.int/eea/eeaagreement/eea-basic-features [accessed 5 Jul 2016] EMI v. CBS [1976],
- EMI Records Limited v. CBS United Kingdom Limited, CJEU 15.6.1976, Case 51/75.
- Farley, C. H. (2014), ‘Territorial exclusivity in U.S. copyright and trademark law,’ in P.-E. Moyse (ed.) Distribution des Intangibles - La Propriété Intellectuelle dans le Commerce des Nouveaux Biens, Montreal: Éditions Thémis, pp. 45-66.
- Griffiths, A. (2011), An Economic Perspective on Trade Mark Law, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9780857936479
- Grigoriadis, L. G. (2014), Trade Marks and Free Trade: A Global Analysis, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04795-9
- INTA (2015), International Trademark Association Position Paper on Parallel Imports, Parallel Imports Committee, August 2015. Retrieved from www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/2015/INTA_PIC_Position_Paper.pdf [accessed 2 Aug 2016]
- Jehoram, H. C. (1999), ‘Prohibition of parallel imports through intellectual property rights,’ International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 495-511.
- Jehoram, T. C.; Nispen, C. & Huydecoper, T. (2010), European Trademark Law: Community Trademark Law and Harmonized National Trademark Law, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
- K-Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc. [1988], Supreme Court of the United States, 486 US (1988) 281.
- Katz, A. (2016, forthcoming), ‘The economic rationale of exhaustion: distribution and post-sale restraints (21 August 2015),’ in I. Caboli & E. Lee (eds.) Research Handbook on IP Exhaustion and Parallel Imports, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
- Katzel [1923], A. Bourjois & Co. Inc. v. Katzel, Supreme Court of the United States, 260 US (1923) 689.
- Keeling, D.; Llewelyn, D.; Mellor, J.; Moody-Stuart, T. & Berkeley, I. (2014), Kerly’s Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names, 15th ed., London: Sweet & Maxwell. (Electronic version available on Westlaw).
- Kerikmäe, T. & Dutt, P. K. (2014), ‘Conceptualization of emerging legal framework of e-regulation in the European Union,’ In T. Kerikmae (ed.) Regulating eTechnologies in the European Union: Normative Realities and Trends, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, pp. 7-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08117-5_2
- Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [2013], Supreme Court of the United States, 133 S. Ct. (2013) 1351.
- LaFrance, M. (2009), Understanding Trademark Law, 2nd ed., New Providence, NJ & San Francisco, CA: LexisNexis.
- — (2013), ‘Wag the dog: using incidental intellectual property rights to block parallel imports,’ Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 45-120.
- Lever Brothers Company v. United States [1993], United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 981 F.2d (1993) 1330.
- Li, C. & Maskus, K. E. (2006), ‘The impact of parallel imports on investments in costreducing research and development,’ Journal of International Economics, vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 443-455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2005.07.006
- MacGillivray, R. A. (2010), Parallel Importation, Canada: Canada Law Book.
- Martin’s Herend Imports, Inc v. Diamond & Gem Trading USA [1997], United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, 112 F.3d (1997) 1296.
- Maskus, K. E. (2000), ‘Parallel imports,’ The World Economy, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 1269-1284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9701.00329
- — (2010), ‘The curious economics of parallel imports,’ WIPO Journal, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 123-132.
- McCarthy, J. T. (2016), McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, 4th ed., March 2016 Update (Available on Westlaw).
- Michaels, A. & Norris, A. (2010), A Practical Approach to Trade Mark Law, 4th ed., New York: Oxford University Press.
- Mueller-Langer, F. (2012), ‘Parallel trade and its ambiguous effects on global welfare,’ Review of International Economics, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 177-185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9396.2011.01016.x
- NERA (1999), The Economic Consequences of the Choice of a Regime of Exhaustion in the Area of Trademarks. Final Report for DGXV of the European Commission, Prepared by the National Economic Research Associates (NERA), SJ Berwin & Co and IFF Research London, 8 February 1999. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/docs/tm/report_en.pdf [2 Aug 2016]
- Norman, H. E. (2013), Intellectual Property Law: Directions, New York: Oxford University Press.
- Nyman-Metcalf, N.; Dutt, P. K. & Chochia, A. (2014), ’The freedom to conduct business and the right to property: the EU technology transfer block exemption regulation and the relationship between intellectual property and competition law,’ in T. Kerikmae (ed.) Protecting Human Rights in the EU, Berlin: Springer-Verlag pp. 37-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38902-3_4
- Ohly, A. & Pila, J. (2013), The Europeanization of Intellectual Property Law: Towards a European Legal Methodology, New York: Oxford University Press.
- Peatman, S. (2014), ‘Moving toward uniform international trademark protection: how amending the TRIPS Agreement will make parallel importing of gray goods less gray,’ Southwestern Journal of International Law, vol. 20, pp. 445-465.
- Phytheron International SA v. Jean Bourdon SA [1997], CJEU 20.3.1997, Case C-352/95.
- Prutzman, L. D. & Stenshoel, E. (2013), ‘IP Exhaustion around the World: Differing Approaches and Consequences to the Reach of IP Protection beyond the First Sale - The Exhaustion Doctrine in the United States.’ New York State Bar Association. International Law and Practice Section. Hanoi, Vietnam, Fall Meeting 2013. Retrieved from www.nysba.org/Sections/International/Seasonal_Meetings/Vietnam/Program_3/Eric_Stenshoel_and_L__Donald_Prutzman_materials.html [accessed 2 Aug 2016]
- Rai, R. K. & Jagannathan, S. (2012), ‘Parallel imports and unparallel laws: an examination of the exhaustion doctrine through the lens of pharmaceutical products,’ Information & Communications Technology Law, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 53-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2012.644692
- Ralf Sieckmann v Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt [2002], CJEU 12.12.2002, C-273/00.
- Sardina, M. V. (2011), ‘Exhaustion and first sale in intellectual property,’ Santa Clara Law Review, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 1055-1062.
- Sebago [1999], Sebago Inc. and Ancienne Maison Dubois & Fils SA v. G-B Unic SA, CJEU 1.7.1999, Case C-173/98.
- Shen, C. (2012), ‘Intellectual property rights and international free trade: new jurisprudence of international exhaustion doctrine under the traditional legal system,’ Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 176-211.
- Silhouette [1998], Silhouette International Schmied GmbH & Co. KG v. Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH, CJEU 16.7.1998, Case C-355/96.
- The United States Code (U.S. Code), Office of the Law Revision Counsel, The United States Code Online is current through Public Law 114-115 (28 December 2015), except for 114-195.
- The United States Trademark Act of 1946, as Amended 25 November 2013.
- Treaty on European Union (TEU), Consolidated version of the 26 October 2012, Official Journal of the European Union, C 326/01.
- Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Consolidated version of the 26 October 2012, Official Journal of the European Union, C 326/01.
- Verma, S. K. (1998), ‘Exhaustion of intellectual property rights and free trade - Article 6 of the TRIPS Agreement,’ International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 534-567.
- Vrins, O. & Schneider, M., eds. (2012), Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Through Border Measures: Law and Practice in the EU, 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Zappalaglio, A. (2015), ‘International exhaustion of trade marks and parallel imports in the US and the EU: how to achieve symmetry?’ Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 68-86.
- Zino Davidoff SA v. CVS Corporation [2009], United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 571 F.3d (2009) 238.