Articles on parallel imports published in (2014) 22(1) CCLJ 1, 21 and 39.
Big week for parallel imports last week: (1) the US Supreme Court declared US law applies a doctrine of international exhaustion for copyright material (2) Adobe, Apple and Microsoft fronted the Australian Parliament to explain why digital “things” cost so much more in Australia than elsewhere (i.e., the USA). Apple’s defence said, amongst other things, it was the price it had to pay to the owners of Australian copyright – lovely chart here… Read More
Marty (The Trademark Blog) extracts from the 11th Circuit’s ruling in Davidoff v CVS, where the parallel importer was found liable for infringement by removing the UPC codes (which, of course, are not put there to detect parallel import leaks, but in case of product recall requirements). He appends the text of the decision. Off the top of my head, I don’t think that argument would help Davidoff down here as s 123.. Read More