“PARALLEL IMPORT” IS ALLOWED

The Supreme court of Cassation has passed a favourable judgement for “parallel import”, namely by Decision 249/22.03.2006 the SCC ruled that there is no infringement of the trademark right when the goods imported in the country are original.

The aforementioned decision by the CSS repeals as groundless the claims of “Justerini and Brooks Limited” – London against a Bulgarian company realising import of original whisky of the “J&B brand.
Trademark owners have long speculated that they are the only ones who have the right to import in the country goods bearing their trademark. Trademark also asserted their opinion through the media that “parallel import” is a term which equals “gray economy” and it incurred damages not only to the consumers, but to the country as well. All this is far from true, which was proved once again by the legal practice of the SCC, as such a Decision is not passed for the first time by the highest court in Bulgaria. The difference between the “Gray economy” and “parallel import” lies in the fact that the first phenomenon causes damages to the state budget, while the second one deposits effectively the due state receipts in the budget, which brings profit to the country.
Contrary to trademark owners’ allegations, “parallel import” proved useful for the end consumer, as the latter has the opportunity to choose one and the same goods /original/ at competitive prices. This was the purpose of the enduring practice of the Committee on protection of competition and the position of the Patent Office in the country, but all of this was distorted and submitted biasedly to government authorities and institutions.
As a matter of fact the trademark owners’ goal is to impose a monopoly on the market, as they want that every import of goods bearing their brand should be realised with their exclusive permission or that they should be the only ones who would put these goods on the market. This practically means a restriction of the free movement of goods and imposing a monopoly situation, which contradicts the Protection of Competition Act.

The issue of the so-called “parallel import” has been solved in the European Community and the latter is not prohibited; on the contrary, the Committee, established to this end, explains in its report that this type of trade does not infringe the trademark owners’ rights and favours the end consumer.