European Court Votes For Higher Prices

[TCO]

Originally posted by Roland
Cause they could then price discriminate within one regulatory system. Btw, this point is a matter of legislation, not of case law.

A simpler answer would be that there is no hidden trademark resale reservation. That I can sell the jeans to whoever I want. The import case is the departure from the rule, not the reverse.

They are not irrelevant. The issue was happens in the absence of explicit agreements, and the court held that consent is reqzured, and it was quite restrictive on what to see as an implied consent.

We are in agreement. I am making the point that the resale agreemetns no longer need to be negotiated by the seller. Therefore the status of the Singapore agreement is irrelevent. The importer has to get premission from Levi's.

As a matter of fact you could break that "chain".

Agreed. That was my point. Someone can break the chain and the recourse from both a legal and business standpoint should be against the "breaker".

As a matter of law that's not so clear. It's a bit like buying from a thief... and wheter you own the goods bought.

Are you making that claim? What does the law say in general on the issue of resale of goods that have resale restrictions? Is recourse against the chain breaker or against people further down?

[Roland]

"A simpler answer would be that there is no hidden trademark resale reservation."

SIMPLE ? HEY IT'S A LEGAL ISSUE!!!!

"That I can sell the jeans to whoever I want. The import case is the departure from the rule, not the reverse."

This is for you economists - rule/exception in law is a matter of legal technique, not substance.

"Are you making that claim?"

What claim ?

"What does the law say in general on the issue of resale of goods that have resale restrictions? Is recourse against the chain breaker or against people further down?"

Well that varies a lot, esp between common and civil law. Colleagues of mine are participating in a comparative study on a subissue of that (reservation of property); shall I notify you when it's published ? Couple hundred pages...

[TCO]

Originally posted by Roland
"A simpler answer would be that there is no hidden trademark resale reservation."

SIMPLE ? HEY IT'S A LEGAL ISSUE!!!!

"That I can sell the jeans to whoever I want. The import case is the departure from the rule, not the reverse."

This is for you economists - rule/exception in law is a matter of legal technique, not substance.

"Are you making that claim?"

What claim ?

"What does the law say in general on the issue of resale of goods that have resale restrictions? Is recourse against the chain breaker or against people further down?"

Well that varies a lot, esp between common and civil law. Colleagues of mine are participating in a comparative study on a subissue of that (reservation of property); shall I notify you when it's published ? Couple hundred pages...

LOL, Roland.

Just the exective summary version. Don't need new research. Just the general answer...maybe a few comments on departures, etc. But start with an answer, then qualify.

I don't need to wait for the final publication. I'll trust you to get it past the peer review. Just give me the key take-aways.

[Roland]

Fine, Mr engineer-accountant. As for our law, shall we talk about obligatory (obligatorische) or property-related (dingliche) restrictions ?

Seriously, the only short answer I can give is on "Is recourse against the chain breaker or against people further down?" - usually people "further down" who acted bona fide will be protected; alternatively though they could have to hand over the goods and seek compensation from the "chain-breaker". Most legal systems will have a mix of those, we have the first for consumers and IIRC the second one for businesses. (this is a general rule for property/contract, intellectual property is a different animal)

[TCO]

Herr academic lawyer...mit der broken knee ,

You introduced the issue of similarity to stolen property. I just want you to state how close the similarity is. To understand what assertion is being made.

Thanks for your info.

[Roland]

My knee is getting better, thanx.

My point was about the similarity of the problem, the solutions differ.

More generally: If you look at economic effects of law you need a sort of pre-legal, economic attribution of goods, income etc. You'll run into problems with that in analysing the basic legal provisions that decide borderline cases - and I'd say there is not even a clearcut answer whether intellectual property rights should be considered pre-legal or a purely law-created beast. So maybe the economic answer is there should be no trademarks at all ?

[TCO]

Nah...I don't think you need to complicate it so much (but of course feel free...since you're a lawyer...and an academic one...whose knee is still hurting ).

The simple solution is to say that trademarks and patents affect the ability to make and sell the goods originally. but that there is no "secret reserved ownership" floating in the jeans afterwards. Really it seems silly to think of some general right of trademarks that only applies in this one recent case, doesn't apply internally, etc.

Maybe there is a secret reserved right of the trademark guys so that I need to get explicit permission to cut holes in the jeans. Or maybe I need permission for certain questionable activities...hmmm? Got any cute frauleins handy!? We could get a test case here...we'd even have the international angle...you could birng in the Us consulate and everything. I'd be the EU's prisoner of love...

[Roland]

"but that there is no "secret reserved ownership" floating in the jeans afterwards."

What if jeans were stolen and resold couple of times ? Would the "reserved" ownership of the initional owner "float on" ?

And why is it you sicko derive such pleasure from my hurting knee ? (ambiguity intended)

[TCO]

Originally posted by Roland
"but that there is no "secret reserved ownership" floating in the jeans afterwards."

What if jeans were stolen and resold couple of times ? Would the "reserved" ownership of the initional owner "float on" ?

And why is it you sicko derive such pleasure from my hurting knee ? (ambiguity intended)

*Resists urge for kneepad comment*

Roland, the difference here is that the goods weren't stolen, they were sold. And the EU ruling said that the people down the chain have to go back and get permission to import regardless of wether resale restrictions were negotiated or not. It's not just a "broken chain", but even if there never were any resale restrictions. Maybe every good should be treated that way...I sell some steel to the EU...Anybody later on who wants to ship it back has to check with me.

[Roland]

"Maybe every good should be treated that way..."

Works for Microcrap.