From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...
Silhouette International v. Hartlauer
European Court of Justice
Case C-355/96,  E.C.R. 1-4799,  2 C.M.L.R. 953,  C.E.C. 676 (July 16, 1998)
Silhouette International Schmied GmbH & Co. KG (Silhouette) (plaintiff) produced high-end eyeglasses under the trademark “Silhouette,” which was registered in Austria and most other countries of the world. Silhouette supplied eyeglasses directly to opticians in Austria and had subsidiary companies or distributors supply their eyeglasses to other countries. Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Hartlauer) (defendant) also sold eyeglasses in Austria through its subsidiaries, but at a lower price point than Silhouette’s. Silhouette did not supply eyeglasses to Hartlauer because Silhouette believed that being distributed by the more budget friendly Hartlauer would be harmful to its image as a luxury brand. In October 1995, Silhouette sold 21,000 eyeglass frames to the Bulgarian company Union Trading. Silhouette had directed its representative to instruct Union Trading to only sell the eyeglasses frames in Bulgaria or the states of the former USSR, but it was uncertain whether the representative actually did so. Subsequently, Hartlauer bought the frames from an unknown source. Hartlauer then offered the frames for sale in Austria and released a press campaign advertising that it had managed to buy 21,000 Silhouette frames abroad. Silhouette brought an action for preliminary relief in Austrian court. Silhouette sought an injunction restraining Hartlauer from selling eyeglass frames in Austria under Silhouette’s trademark without being put in the European Economic Area (EEA) by Silhouette or third parties with Silhouette’s consent. Hartlauer argued that trademark-exhaustion laws were not totally comprehensive and left member states to the treaty establishing the European Economic Community (EC Treaty) with the ability to adopt their own exhaustion laws for products placed on the market in nonmember countries. Further, Hartlauer argued that Austria did not put any law in place prohibiting Hartlauer’s importation of the eyeglasses, so Silhouette was not entitled to an injunction.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Jacobs, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 618,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 618,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 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.