1979-1970

1979

IPPT19790220, ECJ, Cassis de Dijon
Measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions on imports also include legislation fixing a minimum alcohol content for alcoholic beverages, that have been lawfully produced and marketed in anonther member state  

1978

IPPT19781010, ECJ, Centrafarm v American Home Products

The proprietor of a trade-mark is justified in preventing a product from being marketed by a third party even if previously that product has been lawfully marketed in another member state under another mark held in the latter state by the same proprietor.

IPPT19780622, USSC, Parker v Flook
method in which the only novel feature is a mathematical formula not patentable

IPPT19780523, ECJ, Hoffman-La Roche v Centrafarm

Trade-mark proprietor can prevent repackaging, unless (i) that contributes to the artificial partitioning of the markets between member states, (ii) the repackaging cannot adversely affect the original condition of the product, (iii) the proprietor receives prior notice, and (iv) it is stated on the new packaging by whom the product has been repackaged.

1976 

IPPT19761130, ECJ, Bier v Mines de Potasse

International jurisdiction: Place where harmful event occurred in article 5 (3) must be established in such a way as to acknowl-edge that the plaintiff has an option to commence proceedings either at the place where the damage occurred or the place of the event giving rise to it

IPPT19766022, ECJ, Terrapin v Terranova
Free movement of goods: Import of products of an undertaking in another member state can be prohibited by virtue of a right to a trademark and a right to a commercial name, provided that there are no agreements restricting competition and no legal or economic ties between the undertakings exist. 

IPPT19760615, ECJ, EMI v CBS
Trademark owner can exercise trademark rights against products bearing the same mark, which is owned in a third country, provided that the exercise is not the result of an agreement or concerted practice to isolate or partition the common market.

IPPT19765020, ECJ, De Peijper
Free movement of medicinal products: rules of practices which result in imports being channelled in such a way that only certain traders can effect these imports  constitute a maesure having equivalent effect to a quantative restriction . 

1974

IPPT19741031, ECJ, Centrafarm v Sterling Drug
Exercising patent rights to prohibit sale of a product marketed in another member state with the panteee's consent  is incompatible with the free movement of goods.

IPPT19741031, ECJ, Centrafarm v Winthrop
Exercising trademark rights to prohibit sale of a product marketed in another member state with the trademark owner's consent  is incompatible with the free movement of goods. 

IPPT19740711, ECJ, Dassonville
All trading rules enacted by member states which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, ac-tually or potentially, intra-community trade are to be considered as measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions.

1972

IPPT19721120, USSC, Gottschalk v Benson
Method consisting of  merely a series of mathemati-cal calculations or mental steps not patentable: It is conceded that one may not patent an idea. But in practical effect that would be the result if the formula for converting BCD numerals to pure binary numerals were patented in this case. The mathematical formula involved here has no substantial practical application except in connection with a digital computer, which means that if the judgment below is affirmed, the patent would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself. 

1971

IPPT19711125, ECJ, Beguellin
Exclusive dealing agreement and parallel import. Mere parallel imports not sufficient to qualify for unfair competition

IPPT19710608, ECJ, Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft v Metro
The exercise of an exclusive right to prevent the marketing of products distributed with the consent of the holder of the right in another member state is in conflict with free movement of products. Mere exercise of an exclusive right not sufficient to constitute a dominant position; the power to im-pede the maintenance of effective competition over a considerable part of the relevant market also require. Difference in price may be decisive factor to determine abuse

IPPT19710218, ECJ, Sirena
Prohibition on cartels is applicable to exercising a trademark right to distort import from other member states when the trademark or trademark license is aquired by means of an agreement. A trademark as such does not constitute a domi-nant position; also necessary that the proprietor should have power to impede the maintenance of effective competition over a con-siderable part of the relevant market. Price difference may be a determining factor to disclose abuse