Abstract
In the traditional “brick-and-mortar” industry, the principle of exhaustion is well established by case law, as well as by legislation in both European Union and Belgian laws. However, with new marketing and business models emerging and goods and services being increasingly distributed online (in the broadest sense), the traditional boundaries of the principle of exhaustion are put into question. As a consequence, the question “To what extent does the principle of exhaustion of IP rights apply to the on-line industry?” (the “Question”), which this report discusses, is of great importance as it determines the extent to which a user is free to use and to distribute onwards the “goods” that he/she purchased online.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
ECJ, case C-128/11, UsedSoft GmbH v. Oracle International Corp (not yet published).
- 2.
In Belgium known as de uitputtingsleer or la théorie de l’épuisement.
A. Berenboom, Le nouveau droit d’auteur et les droits voisins (4th Ed.), Brussels, Larcier, 2005, 365 et s; M. Buydens and C. Bernard, “L’épuisement du droit à la marque”, JDE 2013, vol. 196, 37 et seq., and S. Molenaers, “Het uitputtingsbeginsel in het merkenrecht”, IRDI 2001, 4 et seq.; M. Krol and J. Mencl, “The principle of exhaustion of copyright in digital environment”, Master of Laws in Intellectual Property – Collection of Research Papers 2008, World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva 2009, 2; S. von Lewinski and M. M. Walter “Information Society Directive” in M. M. Walter and S. von Lewinski (eds.), European Copyright Law. A Commentary, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010, 997, nr. 11.4.16. and T. Overdijk, P. van der Putt, E. de Vries and T. Schafft, “Exhaustion and Software Resale Rights. A comparison between the European exhaustion doctrine and the U.S. First sale doctrine in the light of recent case law”, Cri 2011, vol. 2, (33) 34.
- 3.
Articles 28 to 37 (free movement of goods) and 56 to 62 (freedom to provide services).
- 4.
Y. Van Couter and B. Van Brabant, Handboek Licentieovereenkomsten, Brussels, Larcier, 2008, 271–294.
- 5.
We notice that the scope of application of the European notion of “exhaustion” is not identical to the notion of “first sale” in the United States. Article 109(a) of the U.S. Copyright Act states: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord (…). See for further information: M. Krol and J. Mencl, “The principle of exhaustion of copyright in digital environment”, Master of Laws in Intellectual Property – Collection of Research Papers 2008, World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva 2009 (available at: http://www.turin-ip.com/research-papers/papers-2008/Krol-Mencl.FINAL.pdf/view) and S. Vanden Heuvel, “Fighting the First Sale Doctrine: Strategies for a Struggling Film Industry”, 18 Milch. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 661 (2012). Available at: http://www.mttlr.org/voleighteen/vandenheuvel.pdf.
- 6.
Recital 28 InfoSoc Directive. See also: S. von Lewinski and M. M. Walter “Information Society Directive” in M. M. Walter and S. von Lewinski (eds.), European Copyright Law. A Commentary, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010, 1001, nr. 11.4.28 et seq.
In the United States, the first sale doctrine similarly applies only to goods manufactured in the United States. However, a recent decision by the US Supreme Court has extended this and brought the discussion on international exhaustion back in the picture. See US Supreme Court 19 March 2013, Kirtsaeng, dba Bluechristines 99 v. John Wiley & Sons, in which it was decided that “The ‘first sale’ doctrine applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad.” Decision available at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-697. It can be estimated that this decision shall not effect European law (L. Fresco, “Kirtsae v. Wiley: de Amerikaanse uitputtingsslag om studieboeken”, IE-Forum.nl (available at: http://www.ie-forum.nl/backoffice/uploads/file/IE-Forum%20L_E_%20Fresco,%20Kirtsaeng%20v_%20Wiley,%20de%20Amerikaanse%20uitputtingsslag%20om%20studieboeken,%20IE-Forum_nl%20IEF%2012498.pdf).
- 7.
ECJ, case 78/70, Grammophon Gesellschaft v. Metro-SB-Grossmärkt GmbH, ECR 1971 I-487, pt 11–12.
- 8.
“Cour de cassation/Hof van Cassatie” in Belgium. See Cass. 12 June 1998, ICIP-Ing. Cons. 1999, 100 and Brussels 11 April 1997, A&M 1997, 265, note V. Vanovermeire. See also: S. Dusollier, Droit d’auteur et protection des œuvres dans l’univers numérique, Brussels, Larcier, 397, nr. 504 and M. Buydens and C. Bernard, “L’épuisement du droit à la marque”, JDE 2013, vol. 196, 37, nr. 2.
- 9.
Article 13.1 of Council Regulation 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark: A Community trade mark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit its use in relation to goods which have been put on the market in the Community under that trade mark by the proprietor or with his consent. With regard to Belgium: Article 2.23.3 Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property (Trademarks and Designs), BS 26 April 2006.
- 10.
Article 21 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs, OJ L 5 January 2002, n° 3, 1. With regard to Belgium: Article 3.19.4 Benelux Convention on Intellectual Property (Trademarks and Designs), BS 26 April 2006.
- 11.
Article 6 of Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection, OJ L 31 December 2012, n° 361.
- 12.
Article 9.2 of Directive 2006/115 of 12 December 2006 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, OJ L 27 December 2006, n° 376, 28.
- 13.
Article 4.2 Directive 2009/24 of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs, OJ L 5 May 2009, n° 111, 16 (hereafter referred to as the “Software Directive”). With regard to Belgium: Article 5.c of Act of 30 June 1994 regarding the transposition into Belgian law of the European Directive of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs, BS 27 July 1994.
- 14.
Article 5.c of Directive 96/9 of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of database, OJ L 27 March 1996, n° 77, 20 (hereafter referred to as the “Database Directive”). With regard to Belgium: article 4, par. 3 Act of 31 August 1998 regarding transposition into Belgium law of the European Directive of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of database, BS 14 November 1996.
- 15.
Article 4.2 Infosoc Directive. With regard to Belgium: article 1,§1, par. 6 Act of 30 June 1994 on copyright and related rights, BS 27 July 1994 (hereafter referred to as the “Belgian Copyright Act”).
- 16.
The original text in Dutch states: Alleen de auteur van een werk van letterkunde of kunst heeft het recht de distributie van het origineel van het werk of van kopieën ervan aan het publiek, door verkoop of anderszins, toe te staan. De eerste verkoop of andere eigendomsoverdracht in de Europese Gemeenschap van het origineel of een kopie van een werk van letterkunde of kunst door de auteur of met diens toestemming leidt tot uitputting van het distributierecht van dat origineel of die kopie in de Europese Gemeenschap” In French: “L’auteur d’une œuvre littéraire ou artistique a seul le droit d’autoriser la distribution au public, par la vente ou autrement, de l’original de son œuvre ou de copies de celle-ci. La première vente ou premier autre transfert de propriété de l’original ou d’une copie d’une œuvre littéraire ou artistique dans la Communauté européenne par l’auteur ou avec son consentement, épuise le droit de distribution de cet original ou cette copie dans la Communauté européenne.
- 17.
In the TRIPs Agreement, the principle of “exhaustion” is only mentioned. Member States are thus free whether to apply this concept in their national legislation. See article 6 “exhaustion” of TRIPS: For the purposes of dispute settlement under this Agreement, subject to the provisions of Articles 3 and 4 nothing in this Agreement shall be used to address the issue of the exhaustion of intellectual property rights.
- 18.
Article 6.2 WIPO Copyright Treaty of 20 December 1996: Nothing in this Treaty shall affect the freedom of Contracting Parties to determine the conditions, if any, under which the exhaustion of the right in paragraph (1) applies after the first sale or other transfer of ownership of the original or a copy of the work with the authorization of the author.
- 19.
F. de Visscher and B. Michaux, Précis du droit d’auteur, Brussels, Bruylant, 2000, 88, nr. 105 and P. Torremans, “The future implications of the Usedsoft Decision”, 3–4, available at http://www.create.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/CREATe-Working-Paper-2014-02.pdf. and A. Wiebe, “The principle of exhaustion in European Copyright law and the distinction between digital goods and digital services”, GRUR Int. 2009, 114.
- 20.
The European legislator has, however, in some of the aforementioned provision foreseen that a rightholder can still oppose further commercialization of the product if there are “legitimate grounds.” See regarding the Community trademark article 13.2 Regulation 207/2009 (paragraph 1 shall not apply where there exist legitimate reasons for the proprietor to oppose further commercialisation of the goods, especially where the condition of the goods is changed or impaired after they have been put on the market) and regarding unitary patent article 6 Regulation 1257/201 (“(…), unless there are legitimate grounds for the patent proprietor to oppose further commercialisation of the product”).
- 21.
A. Göbel, “The principal of exhaustion and the resale of downloaded software – The UsedSoft/Oracle case”, ELR 2012, vol. 9, (226) 229 and M. Krol and J. Mencl, “The principle of exhaustion of copyright in digital environment”, Master of Laws in Intellectual Property – Collection of Research Papers 2008, World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva 2009, 2.
- 22.
With regard to copyright, see: Recital 10 InfoSoc Directive.
- 23.
Recital 9 InfoSoc Directive.
- 24.
See the definition of information society services in article 2(a) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce) (hereafter referred to as the ‘E-Commerce Directive’): any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by electronic means and at the individual request of a recipient of services. This directive was transposed into Belgian law by the Act of 11 March 2003 regarding certain procedural aspects of the information society services, BS 17 March 2003.
- 25.
Such as particular information requirements and liability of intermediary service providers.
- 26.
Regarding trademarks, however, the European Court of Justice decided that the right of reproduction can be subject to exhaustion: ECJ, case C-337/95, Parfums Christian Dior SA & Parfums Christian Dior BV v. Evora BV.
Also, according to the first sale doctrine, in the United States exhaustion does not extend to the right to make new copies of an item. See very recently: US Supreme Court 13 May 2013, Bowman v Monsanto Co et al., Available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf.
- 27.
Opinion Advocate General Bot delivered on 24 April 2012, case C-128/11, UsedSoft Gmbh v. Oracle International Corp., point 48. The opinion of the Advocate General was, however, not followed by the Court itself in this case. See further Sect. 20.4.2.2.
- 28.
See Sect. 20.3.1.
- 29.
ECJ, case 62/79, SA Compagnie Générale pour la Diffusion de la Télévison SA Coditel Brabant and SA Compagnie Liégoise pour la diffusion de la Télévision v. SA Ciné Vog Films, ASBL Chambre Syndicale belge de la Cinématographie, SA “les Films la Boétie” and Chambre syndicale des Producteurs et Exportateurs de Films français, pt 12 and 13 and ECJ, case 262/81, Coditel SA, Coditel Brabant, Coditel Liège, Intermixt, Union professionnelle de radio et de télédistribution and Inter-Régies v. Ciné-Vog Films SA, Chambre syndicale belge de la cinématographie, les Films La Boétie, Serge Pinon and Chambre syndicale des producteurs et exportateurs de films français, pt 11 and 12. See also: ECJ, case C-17/92, Federación de Distribuidores Cinematográficos (Fedicine) v. The Spanish State, pt. 10 and Opinion Advocate General Kokott delivered on 3 February 2011, Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08, Football Association Premier League Ltd and Others v QC Leisure and Others and Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd, pt. 184. See further Sect. 20.4.3.2.
- 30.
See also recital 29 InfoSoc Directive.
- 31.
B. Van Brabant, “Les conflits susceptibles de survenir entre l’auteur d’une œuvre et le propriétaire du support”, ICIP-Ing. Cons. 2004, vol. 2, (91) 92–93.
- 32.
To this respect, we mention that in Belgium (and in France) a so-called right of destination (bestemmingsrecht—droit de destination) is known. This right, recognized by the Supreme Court of Belgium (Cass. 19 January 1956, Pas. 1956, I, 484.), falls under the reproduction right and covers the right of the rightholder to limit the use of which contracting (or third) parties can make of reproductions which are put on the market. Reproduction is thus allowed but under certain conditions as specified by the rightholder and always subject to the rule of exhaustion. See: F. Gotzen, Het bestemmingsrecht van de auteur, Brussel, Larcier, 1975; F. Gotzen, “Art. 1” in F. Brison and H. Vanhees (eds.), Huldeboek Jan Corbet. De Belgische Auteurswet. Artikelsgewijze commentaar (3th ed.), Brussels, Larcier, 2012, 11–12 and B. Van Brabant, “Les conflits susceptibles de survenir entre l’auteur d’une œuvre et le propriétaire du support”, ICIP-Ing. Cons. 2004, vol. 2, (91) 165 et seq.
- 33.
S. Dusollier, Droit d’auteur et protection des oeuvres dans l’univers numérique, Brussels, Larcier, 397 et seq., nr. 504 et seq.
- 34.
S. von Lewinski and M. M. Walter “Information Society Directive” in M. M. Walter and S. von Lewinski (eds.), European Copyright Law. A Commentary, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010, 1003–1004, nr. 11.4.36.
- 35.
BS 30 December 2013.
- 36.
Article 2.5 Directive 2011/83.
- 37.
Article 2.3 Directive 2011/83.
- 38.
See further Sect. 20.4.2.1.
- 39.
S. Dusollier, Droit d’auteur et protection des oeuvres dans l’univers numérique, Brussels, Larcier, 396–397, nr. 503.
- 40.
Agreed Statements of 23 December 1996 concerning the WIPO Copyright Treaty, CRNR/DC/96, 2. Available at: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/diplconf/en/crnr_dc/crnr_dc_96.pdf.
- 41.
European Commission, Green Paper “Copyright an Related Rights in the Information Society” (19 June 1995), COM (95) 382 final, 47–48: On the other hand, if the work or related matter is not incorporated in a material form but is used in the provision of services, the situation is entirely different. (…) the interested parties feel that it should be ensured that the rights are no exhausted by the information superhighway. In fact, given that the provision of services can in principle be repeated an unlimited number of times, the exhaustion rule cannot apply (emphasis added). This was also confirmed in the follow-up to this Green Paper: European Commission, “Follow-up to the Green Paper on copyright and related rights in the information society” (20 November 1996), COM(96) 568 final, chapter 2: “(…) Parties confirmed that given that services can in principle be repeated an unlimited number of times, the exhaustion rule cannot apply. (…)” (emphasis added).
- 42.
Recital 43 Database Directive: Whereas, in the case of on-line transmission, the right to prohibit re-utilization is not exhausted either as regards the database or as regards a material copy of the database or of part thereof made by the addressee of the transmission with the consent of the rightholder (emphasis added).
- 43.
See Sect. 20.3.2.1.
- 44.
ECJ, case C-479/04, Laserdisken ApS v Kulturministeriet, [2006] ECR I-08089, pt. 23: “(…) According to the twenty-eight recital in the preamble to Directive 2001/29, copyright protection under that directive includes the exclusive right to control distribution of the work incorporated in a tangible medium. (…)” (emphasis added).
- 45.
Court of First Instance of Ghent 23 September 2009, A&M 2010, vol. 1, (42) 48: Deze regel moet worden begrepen in het licht van het wezenlijke onderscheid tussen het (reëel) eigendomsrecht van de (materiële) drager (d.i. een CD-Rom, een diskette, e.d.m.), enerzijds, en het (intellectuele) eigendomsrecht van het (immateriële) werk (d.i. het computer-programma) als dusdanig) dat er (in kopie) in vervat ligt, anderzijds.
- 46.
In particular, for Belgium: F. de Visscher and B. Michaux, Précis du droit d’auteur, Brussels, Bruylant, 2000, 88, nr. 104; N. Helberger, ““Verkauft ist verkauft; wiederholen ist wiederholen”- reflecties op de UsedSoft-uitspraak van het Europese Hof”, DCCR 2013, vol. 98, (31) 33 and S. Dusollier, Droit d’auteur et protection des oeuvres dans l’univers numérique, Brussels, Larcier, 396–397, nr. 503. See also: L. G. Grigoriadis, “Exhaustion and software resale rights in licht of recent EU case law”, Journal of International Media and Entertainment Law (2013–2014), Vol. 5, No. 1 (111) 113 (available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2403554.); A. L. Schloetter, “The Acquis Communautaire in the Area of Copyright and Related Rights: Economic Rights” in T-E. Synodinou (ed.), Codification of European Copyright Law, Kluwer Law International, The Netherlands, 2012, (115) 120; H. Struik, P.C. van Schelven and W.A.J. Hooreman, Softwarerecht. Bescherming en gebruik van computerprogrammatuur onder auteursrecht en octrooirecht, Kluwer-Deventer, 2010, 140 and A. Wiebe, “The principle of exhaustion in European Copyright law and the distinction between digital goods and digital services”, GRUR Int. 2009, 114–115. Contra: M. Krol and J. Mencl, “The principle of exhaustion of copyright in digital environment”, Master of Laws in Intellectual Property – Collection of Research Papers 2008, World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva 2009, 2.
- 47.
US Copyright Office, A Report of the Register of Copyrights pursuant to §104 of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, August 2011. 82 et seq. Available at http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/sec-104-report-vol-1.pdf (hereafter referred to as “DMCA Section 104 Report”).
- 48.
ECJ, case C-128/11, UsedSoft GmbH v. Oracle International Corp. (hereafter referred to as “UsedSoft”).
- 49.
UsedSoft, pt. 23.
- 50.
The full questions for a preliminary ruling were as follows:
1. Is the person who can rely on exhaustion of the right to distribute a copy of a computer program a “lawful acquirer” within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2009/24?
2. If the reply to the first question is in the affirmative: is the right to distribute a copy of a computer program exhausted in accordance with the first half-sentence of Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 when the acquirer has made the copy with the rightholder’s consent by downloading the program from the internet onto a data carrier?
3. If the reply to the second question is also in the affirmative: can a person who has acquired a “used” software licence for generating a program copy as “lawful acquirer” under Article 5(1) and the first half-sentence of Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 also rely on exhaustion of the right to distribute the copy of the computer program made by the first acquirer with the rightholder’s consent by downloading the program from the internet onto a data carrier if the first acquirer has erased his program copy or no longer uses it?
- 51.
See Sect. 20.3.2.2, A Sale.
- 52.
Usedsoft, pt. 42.
- 53.
UsedSoft, pt. 44 and 47.
- 54.
UsedSoft, pt. 49: “(…) if the term ‘sale’ within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24 were not given a broad interpretation as encompassing all forms of product marketing characterised by the grant of a right to use a copy of a computer program, for an unlimited period, in return for payment of a fee designed to enable the copyright holder to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of the copy of the work of which he is the proprietor, the effectiveness of that provision would be undermined, since suppliers would merely have to call the contract a ‘licence’ rather than a ‘sale’ in order to circumvent the rule of exhaustion and divest it of all scope.”
- 55.
See supra Sect. 20.3.2.2, By Means of a Tangible Support.
- 56.
UsedSoft, pt. 58.
- 57.
UsedSoft, pt. 56. This was later confirmed: ECJ, case C-355/12, Nintendo Co. Ltd, Nintendo of America Inc., Nintendo of Europe GmbH v PC Box Srl and 9Net Srl, pt. 23.
- 58.
UsedSoft, pt. 61.
- 59.
UsedSoft, pt. 62–63.
- 60.
See above Sect. 20.3.1.
- 61.
UsedSoft, pt. 66.
- 62.
UsedSoft, pt. 61.
- 63.
Recital 23 InfoSoc Directive.
- 64.
See above Sect. 20.4.2.1.
- 65.
UsedSoft, pt. 52.
- 66.
UsedSoft, pt. 70.
- 67.
UsedSoft, pt 81.
- 68.
UsedSoft, pt. 56.
- 69.
M. Krol and J. Mencl, “The principle of exhaustion of copyright in digital environment”, Master of Laws in Intellectual Property – Collection of Research Papers 2008, World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva 2009, 24.
- 70.
ECJ, case C-355/12, Nintendo Co. Ltd, Nintendo of America Inc., Nintendo of Europe GmbH v PC Box Srl and 9Net Srl, pt. 23.
The fact that videogames were not to be qualified as “computer programs” was until then not completely clear. See, e.g., B. Peeters, “Videospelen: bescherming onder het auteursrecht, maar volgens welke spelregels?”, IRDI 2013, vol. 2, 155–169 and A. Nicholson, “Old habits die hard?: UsedSoft v Oracle”, SCRIPTed 2013, vol. 10/3, (389) 400. Available at: http://script-ed.org/?p=1167.
- 71.
R. Schoefs, “Ontwikkelaars mogen bescherming spelconsoles omzeilen”, Juristenkrant 26 February 2014, 5 and E. Wildman and G. Dickson, “Nintendo judgments puts Usedsoft back in the PC Box”, available at http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=40aa8656-34d9-451e-a4e1-04008d789733.
According to recital 7 Software Directive, a “computer program” is defined as any form, including those which are incorporated into hardware. This term also includes preparatory design work leading to the development of a computer program provided that the nature of the preparatory work is such that a computer program can result from it at a later stage.’ The European Court of Justice furthermore precised that this covers the expression in any form of a computer program which permits reproduction in different computer languages, such as the source code and the object code (ECJ, case C-393/09, Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace—Svaz softwarové ochrany v Ministerstvo kultury, pt 35). Does not fall within this definition: the elements of a computer program, neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression of that program (ECJ, case C-406/10, SAS Institute Inc. v World Programming Ltd, pt. 39). Also the graphic user interface does not fall under this definition (ECJ, case C-393/09, Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace—Svaz softwarové ochrany v Ministerstvo kultury, pt 42).
- 72.
Agreed Statements of 23 December 1996 concerning the WIPO Copyright Treaty, CRNR/DC/96, 2. Available at: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/diplconf/en/crnr_dc/crnr_dc_96.pdf.
- 73.
Article 216(2) TFEU states: Agreements concluded by the Union are binding upon the institutions of the Union and on its Member States. See also: E. Linklater, “UsedSoft and the big bang theory: Is the e-exhaustion meteor about to strike?”, pt. C.1. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2271129.
- 74.
ECJ, case C-344/04, The Queen on the application of: International Air Transport Association, European Low Fares Airline Association v Department for Transport, pt. 35: Article 300(7) EC provides that ‘agreements concluded under the conditions set out in this Article shall be binding on the institutions of the Community and on Member States’. In accordance with the Court’s case-law, those agreements prevail over provisions of secondary Community legislation. See also ECJ, Case C-61/94, Commission v Germany, [1996] ECR I-3989, pt. 52, and ECJ, Case C-286/02, Bellio F.lli, [2004] ECR I-3465, pt. 33.
- 75.
See Sect. 20.3.2.2, By Means of a Tangible Support.
- 76.
UsedSoft, pt. 60.
- 77.
Opinion Advocate General Kokott delivered on 3 February 2011, Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08, Football Association Premier League Ltd and Others v QC Leisure and Others and Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd, pt. 184–185: “Admittedly, some services differ from goods in that they cannot be re-used per se (…) Other services, by contrast, do not differ significantly from goods. Computer software, musical works, e-books, films, etc. which are downloaded from the internet can easily be passed on in electronic form. (…).”
- 78.
W.G.L. During, “Rekken en strekken met de UsedSoft-formule”, AMI 2014, vol. 1, (1) 5 and M. Krol and J. Mencl, “The principle of exhaustion of copyright in digital environment”, Master of Laws in Intellectual Property – Collection of Research Papers 2008, World Intellectual Property Organization, Geneva 2009, 45 et seq.
- 79.
H. Struik, “Past de UsedSoft-constructie ook in de Auteursrechtrichtlijn?”, AMI 2014, vol. 2, 47–52.
- 80.
A. Göbel, “The principal of exhaustion and the resale of downloaded software – The UsedSoft/Oracle case”, ELR 2012, vol. 9, (226) 230.
- 81.
E. Linklater, “UsedSoft and the big bang theory: Is the e-exhaustion meteor about to strike?”, 11. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2271129.
- 82.
Temporary acts of reproduction referred to in Article 2, which are transient or incidental [and] an integral and essential part of a technological process and whose sole purpose is to enable: (a) a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or (b) a lawful use.
- 83.
Recital 32 InfoSoc Directive. P. Charleton and S. Kelly, “The Oracls speaks. Case C-128/11”, 14. Available at http://fordhamipconference.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/2013.charleton.paper_.pdf.
- 84.
Article 5(2) b InfoSoc Directive: in respect of reproductions on any medium made by a natural person for private use and for ends that are neither directly nor indirectly commercial, on condition that the rightholders receive fair compensation which takes account of the application or non-application of technological measures referred to in Article 6 to the work or subject matter concerned.
- 85.
W.G.L. During, “Rekken en strekken met de UsedSoft-formule”, AMI 2014, vol. 1, (1) 8.
- 86.
See Sect. 20.6.
- 87.
US District Court Southern District of New York 30 March 2013, Capitol Records v ReDigi. Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1334&context=historical. (hereafter referred to as “ReDigi”).
- 88.
ReDigi, 12.
- 89.
ReDigi, 13.
- 90.
- 91.
Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, OJ L 2 June 2004, n° 195, 16. The Directive was implemented into Belgian law by the Act of 9 May 2007 concerning civil law aspects of intellectual property rights protection (BS 10 May 2007) and the Act of 10 May 2007 concerning aspects of judicial law of intellectual property rights protection (BS 10 May 2007).
- 92.
According to its article 1 Enforcement Directive applies to the measures, procedures and remedies necessary to the enforcement intellectual property rights. Moreover, Member States are free to extend for internal purposes, the provisions of the Directive. (recital 13 Enforcement Directive) For copyright, article 8 InfoSoc Directive already contained such provision. The Enforcement Directive is without prejudice to the InfoSoc Directive (recital 16).
- 93.
Article 18.1 E-Commerce Directive. In Belgium: Act of 11 March 2003 concerning certain procedural aspects of information society services as meant in article 77 of the Constitution, BS 17 March 2003. This act only deals with procedural aspects and is to be distinguished of the act adopted on the same date and also concerning certain procedural aspects of information society services.
- 94.
See regarding copyright infringement in Belgium: Articles 80 et seq. Belgian Copyright Act.
- 95.
Depending on the matter, a rightholder can base its action on article 114 Act of 6 April 2010 on market practices and consumer protection (BS 12 April 2010) juncto article 3 Act of 6 April 2010 with respect to certain procedures in the frame of Act of 6 April 2010 on market practices and consumer protection, BS 12 April 2010 (hereafter the “Procedural Act on Market Practices”) and, with regard to copyrights, article 87, §1 Belgian Copyright Act.
- 96.
B. Michaux and E. De Gryse, “De handhaving van intellectuele rechten gereorganiseerd”, TBH 2007, vol. 7, (623) 633, pt. 25.
- 97.
Article 3, § 3 Procedural Act on Market Practices.
- 98.
Recital 59 InfoSoc Directive.
- 99.
ECJ, case C-324/09, L’Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC, Laboratoire Garnier & Cie, L’Oréal (UK) Ltd v eBay International AG, eBay Europe SARL, eBay (UK) Ltd, Stephen Potts, Tracy Ratchford, Marie Ormsby, James Clarke, Joanna Clarke, Glen Fox, Rukhsana Bi, pt. 131 and ECJ, case C-70/10, Scarlet Extended NV v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM), pt. 31.
- 100.
Recital 15 Enforcement Directive.
- 101.
Articles 12–14 E-Commerce Directive.
- 102.
Antwerp 26 September 2011, RABG 2011, vol. 18, (1269) 1271, note P. Van Eecke and A. Fierens; ECJ, case C-314/12, UPC Telekabel Wien GmbH v Constantin Film Verleih Gmbh and Wega Filmproduktiongesellschaft mbH, pt. 61 and ECJ, case C-70/10, Scarlet Extended NV v Belgische Vereniging van Auteurs, Componisten en Uitgevers CVBA (SABAM), pt. 43.
- 103.
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 12, 16 January 2001 (hereafter referred to as the “Brussels I-Regulation”).
- 104.
ECJ, case C-170/12, Peter Pinckney v KDG Mediatech AG, pt. 45–46 and ECJ, case C-387/12, Hi Hotel SARL v Uwe Spoering, pt. 38–39.
- 105.
Article 32 et seq. Brussels I-Regulation.
- 106.
Articles 22–31 of the Belgian Act of 16 July 2004 concerning the Code of private international law.
- 107.
M. Demoullin, Droit des contrats à distance et du commerce électronique, Brussels, Kluwer, 2010, 7–11, nrs. 8–10; H. Jacquemin, “Digital Content and Consumer Protection within European Law” in A. Arnab and J.-N. Colin (eds.), Virtual Goods’10, Namen, P.U.N., 2010, (41) 45–47 and H. Jacquemin, “Les nouvelles règles applicables aux contrats à distance et l’incidence des Technologies de l’information et de la communication sur certaines pratiques du marché” in E. Balate, I. Ferrant, H. Jacquemin, J. Laffineur and J. Stuyck, La protection du consommateur après les lois du 6 avril 2010, Louvain-la-Neuve, Anthemis, 2010, (59) 62–65, nrs. 3–10.
- 108.
Directive 2011/83 of the European Parliament and the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 22 November 2011, nr. 304, 64.
- 109.
According to article 2.11 Directive 2011/83: ‘Digital content’ means data which are produced and supplied in digital form.
- 110.
See for example: article 9.2(c) Directive 2011/83.
- 111.
UsedSoft, pt. 47 and 61.
- 112.
UsedSoft, pt. 61.
- 113.
See above Sect. 20.3.2.2, An Identical Copy.
- 114.
UsedSoft, pt. 68.
- 115.
M. Razavia and S. André, “Oracle c/UsedSoft, un an après: regard critique sur les consequences pratiques de cette decision”, RLDI 2013, vol. 97, (8) 9.
- 116.
As the US Copyright Office emphasizes: Physical copies of works degrade with time and use, making used copies less desirable than new ones. Digital information doe not degrade, and can be reproduced perfectly on a recipient’s computer. The “used” copy is just as desirable as (in fact, is indistinguishable from) a new copy of the same work. (See: DMCA Section 104 Report, 82 et seq.)
- 117.
DMCA Section 104 Report, 82.
- 118.
J. Cabay, “L’épuisement en ligne du droit d’auteur. Pérégrinations le long des frontières américaines et européennes du droit de distribution”, A&M 2013, vol. 5, (303) 315–317, nr. 11.b.
- 119.
UsedSoft, pt. 79.
- 120.
Recital 35 InfoSoc Directive.
- 121.
J. Cabay, “L’épuisement en ligne du droit d’auteur. Pérégrinations le long des frontières américaines et européennes du droit de distribution”, A&M 2013, vol. 5, (303) 317, nr. 11.c.
- 122.
B. Docquir, “Les programmes d’ordinateur et le droit de l’Union”, IRDI 2013, vol. 2, (142)153; P. Laurent, “De auteursrechtelijke bescherming van software: drie beslissingen van het HJEU die de zaak veranderen” 24, available at http://www.crid.be/pdf/public/7198.pdf; A. Göbel, “The principal of exhaustion and the resale of downloaded software – The UsedSoft/Oracle case”, ELR 2012, vol. 9, (226) 232 and M. Razavia and S. André, “Oracle c/UsedSoft, un an après: regard critique sur les conséquences pratiques de cette décision”, RLDI 2013, vol. 97, (8) 11.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Clinck, J., Docquir, B. (2016). Belgium. In: Kilpatrick, B., Kobel, P., Këllezi, P. (eds) Compatibility of Transactional Resolutions of Antitrust Proceedings with Due Process and Fundamental Rights & Online Exhaustion of IP Rights. LIDC Contributions on Antitrust Law, Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27158-3_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27158-3_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-27157-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-27158-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)