European Court Votes For Higher Prices

[Buck Birdseed]

Capitalism in action.

[faded glory]

Originally posted by Snapcase
Capitalism in action.

Capitalism kicks ass

Only in Capitalism can you buy Gas, Electronics and CD's cheaper than a bottle of water

Sounds backwards...works out great tho

[Roland]

Reaction to any given EU action:

Nutty leftwinger: "Evil business and capitalism in action"
Nutty rightwinger: "Evil bureaucrats and socialism in action"

I absolutely love the entertainment value...

[Roland]

"Only in Capitalism can you buy Gas, Electronics and CD's cheaper than a bottle of water"

What the **** are you paying for your water ?!?!?!

[TCO]

Chill Roland, I'm joking around. A serious seduction would be mounted more stealthily...

I don't know wether the UK isbetter off in/out of the EU (despite the problems involved with being in it...there are negative consequences of being "outside the wall", especially when all your neighbors are inside it.) I do maintain that free trade (even unilateral) is more beneficial to any nation than protectionism. And there is a lot of "finky" protectionism in the whole EU architecture...

BTW that ruling was too dense. Do you have a synthesized version which gives the key points decided and which explains in normal language what the impact is on the parties?

[Roland]

"Chill Roland, I'm joking around."

As I said, you're a riot.

"A serious seduction would be mounted more stealthily..."

I'm afraid you're confusing me with Ted the Stricher....

"I don't know wether the UK isbetter off in/out of the EU (despite the problems involved with being in it...there are negative consequences of being "outside the wall", especially when all your neighbors are inside it.)"

And within NAFTA there'd still be a wall to the US. NAFTA is about like good ol' EFTA, and it's a joke compared to EU integration levels.

"I do maintain that free trade (even unilateral) is more beneficial to any nation than protectionism. And there is a lot of "finky" protectionism in the whole EU architecture..."

Internally ?

"BTW that ruling was too dense."

In short, if you have a registered trade mark, you can limit the distribution of trade marked goods. Eg, no Gucci stuff at a Walmart "Wühltisch" (table with discounted items in one big mesh). Who wants to distribute then needs a consent; this case was about what does not constitute implied (vs expressive) consent. Levis had a system of selective distribution, and this case was all about how explicit a trade mark owner has to make that, and whether distributors can rely on implied consents etc.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Roland
In short, if you have a registered trade mark, you can limit the distribution of trade marked goods. Eg, no Gucci stuff at a Walmart "Wühltisch" (table with discounted items in one big mesh). Who wants to distribute then needs a consent; this case was about what does not constitute implied (vs expressive) consent. Levis had a system of selective distribution, and this case was all about how explicit a trade mark owner has to make that, and whether distributors can rely on implied consents etc.

Let me play that back. What they are saying is that the supplier can stop people from reselling goods they've bought EVEN IF THEY DIDN'T PUT RESALE RESTRICTIONS in the sale contract. In a sense, the buyer doesn't fully own the products he's bought.

1. Have I translated the implication of this accurately?

2. (For reference) How would something like this be decided in the US?

3. (Leaving aside the intricate written law issues) How do you think situations like this SHOULD BE decided? If you were King? Should somebody who's bought a good be allowed to resell it freely (provided he has not contractually agreed not to) or should the trademark owner have some rights over his goods at all times?

4. What are the implications for consumers? Can this kind of control of the distribution system be used for price discrimination. And as such should the governement actively discourage these arrangements instead of suppporting them and even strengthening them by saying no contract is required.

[Roland]

"In a sense, the buyer doesn't fully own the products he's bought."

Right, he does not own the trade mark. So he can not sell them under (here: the Levi's) trade mark.

"2. (For reference) How would something like this be decided in the US?"

No idea. In the details, Trade mark law is something for specialists and I'm not among them. Fortunately. Don't expect much difference in principle though....

"Should somebody who's bought a good be allowed to resell it freely (provided he has not contractually agreed not to) or should the trademark owner have some rights over his goods at all times?"

Well you could always break a chain of contracts securing exclusive or selective distribution. Takes one offender, and those buying from him down the chain would get off. The protection of registered trade marks goes a bit further.

"4. What are the implications for consumers?"

I'd say, "hotly contested". Many issues with trade marks are similar to say patent problems.

[chequita guevara]

Levis is being slimy by saying they are doing this for the consumer when they are doing this to protect their image as a luxery jean.

They are my favorite blue jeans, but at nearly $40 a pop, forget it. Lees, Wrangler, and Gap are just as good at a little more than half the price.

[TCO]

This is an interesting area of sublety. I would agree that the buyer doesn't own the trademark. So he can't produce the items (same as a copyright or patent). But it seems like he ought to be able to resell the ITEM. (Same as copyright or patent.) Of course advertising would be a little bit of a sticky issue...

[Solly]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Levis is being slimy by saying they are doing this for the consumer when they are doing this to protect their image as a luxery jean.

Well, exactly...

They are my favorite blue jeans, but at nearly $40 a pop, forget it. Lees, Wrangler, and Gap are just as good at a little more than half the price.

Exactly - it's the consumer's choice. No-one's forcing you to pay $40 or £40 for a pair of jeans when you could pick them up for under ten.

[TCO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Levis is being slimy by saying they are doing this for the consumer when they are doing this to protect their image as a luxery jean.

They are my favorite blue jeans, but at nearly $40 a pop, forget it. Lees, Wrangler, and Gap are just as good at a little more than half the price.

Che, it's even more insidious than that. They are price discriminating. (Trying to take all the consumer surplus... not just the monopolist's profit-maximizing price amount.) As such, they have to try to prevent arbitrage...and tying up the distribtion channels is one way to do this. What's beautiful about this ruling is they don't even have to go to that effort of creating special lock-up contracts. This ruling says that they can always control resale of theiri products, even to people they have no contractual relationship with.


Practical note: Eddy Buaer jeans are very comfortable and look good and cost 50% of Levi's...

[Bereta_Eder]

EU! EU ! EU!
(THAT should bring back memories from the other side of the Atlantic!)

case closed

[Roland]

"This ruling says that they can always control resale of theiri products, even to people they have no contractual relationship with."

Ehm... guess this didn't get clear. Only within the limits of EEA exhaustion. The issue is about "grey" or "parallel" imports from outside the EEA... (international exhaustion).

As a sidenote I found one reference to the US where it seems grey imports are legal but need to be identified as such. Might be tricky in practice, but could be a reasonable compromise.

[TCO]

Sounds like the companies are just trying to prevent arbitrage. I don't see much reason for the government to bend over to help this...