21Thus, the Court held, in paragraph 79 of Bristol-Myers Squibb and Others:’... Article 7(2) of Directive [89/104] is to be interpreted as meaning that the trade mark owner may legitimately oppose the further marketing of a pharmaceutical product where the importer has repackaged the product and reaffixed the trade mark unless— it is established that reliance on trade mark rights by the owner in order to oppose the marketing of repackaged products under that trade mark would contribute to the artificial partitioning of the markets between Member States; such is the case, in particular, where the owner has put an identical pharmaceutical product on the market in several Member States in various forms of packaging, and the repackaging carried out by the importer is necessary in order to market the product in the Member State of importation, and also carried out in such conditions that the original condition of the product cannot be affected by it ...— it is shown that the repackaging cannot affect the original condition of the product inside the packaging. ...— the new packaging clearly states who repackaged the product and the name of the manufacturer ...— the presentation of the repackaged product is not such as to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark and of its owner; thus, the packaging must not be defective, of poor quality, or untidy; and— the importer gives notice to the trade mark owner before the repackaged product is put on sale, and, on demand, supplies him with a specimen of the repackaged product/
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.