Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Paranova
European Court of Justice
[1997] 1 C.M.L.R. 1151 (1996)
- Written by Wesley Bernhardt , JD
Facts
Bristol-Myers Squibb (Bristol-Myers) (plaintiff) owned the rights to several trademarks for pharmaceutical products in Denmark, including Capoten, Mycostatin, Vepesid, Vumon, and Diclocil. Boehringer made pharmaceutical products similar to those made by Bristol-Myers, under the trademarks Atrovent, Berodual, Berotec, and Catapresan, and sold them in Denmark and throughout the European Union. Bayer manufactured a pharmaceutical product under the trademark Adalat, registered in Denmark, and sold this product throughout the European Union. Paranova (defendant) did not manufacture pharmaceutical products itself but rather bought them from Bristol-Myers, Boehringer, and Bayer and then sold them within the European Union, including Denmark. When selling these products in Denmark, Paranova repackaged them with a uniform style of packaging distinct to Paranova. This packaging displayed the trademarks of the respective goods from Bristol-Myers, Bayer, and Boehringer. Bristol-Myers and Boehringer both brought proceedings against Paranova in the Danish courts, alleging trademark infringement. The Danish courts stayed the proceedings and referred the legal question of whether the proprietor of a trademark can prevent a third party from repackaging trademarked goods to the European Court of Justice.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 826,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 991 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
