Syfait II: Restrictions on Parallel Trade Within the European Union
The Canadian Intellectual Property Review (CIPR) is a double-blind peer reviewed journal. It is sent to over 1,800 IPIC members at no cost and can be purchased by non-members for a fee. If you would like to browse the articles included in the CIPR, please consult our database below.
Any author, member or non-member can submit an article for consideration in the CIPR. The CIPR Editorial Board welcomes both short pieces (2,000 to 5,000 words) that may be included in the Notes section of the issue or longer, more in-depth articles. The maximum length of articles, including references, is 20,000 words. Articles may be submitted in French or English. Each article should be accompanied by a 150-word abstract.
All submissions undergo a double-blind review process: the reviewers are not given the authors' identities and the identities of the reviewers are shielded from the authors. Additionally, articles submitted must be original and must not have been previously published elsewhere.
If you would like to submit an article for an upcoming issue of the CIPR please contact admin@ipic.ca.
Canadian Intellectual Property Review
Share
Syfait II: Restrictions on Parallel Trade Within the European Union
Issue: Volume 25 no 1
Author(s): James Tumbridge
Abstract:
On September 16, 2008, the European Court of Justice (E.C.J.) finally gave judgment in the long-running dispute between wholesalers and pharmaceutical companies as to whether art. 82 of the E.C. Treaty1 is breached when a pharmaceutical company refuses to supply orders for products in excess of the need of the wholesaler. The E.C. Treaty has at its heart a desire to create a free trading community of Member States and its articles provide the frame work to achieve that aim. Article 82 being aimed at the prevention of abuse of a dominant position. It is understandable that if the sole manufacturer of a product refused to supply that product, that manufacturer might fall afoul of art. 82. Yet States often fix the price at which pharmaceutical products may be sold. Therefore, where the action of the manufacturer in restricting supply is aimed at countering State interference that is distorting the marketplace, it can equally be understood why art. 82 might be considered unfair. The pharmaceutical companies argued that their restriction on supply still allowed market needs to be met, and it only restricted parallel imports across national boundaries that otherwise harmed their business. Whereas the wholesalers claimed this practice was an abuse of a dominant position and led to national shortages of products. The E.C.J. decision on this dispute is therefore of relevance to the entire pharmaceutical community.
