Abstract
This Comment argues that, given the consumer dependence on trademarks to distinguish between goods of varying quality, the ECJ made the correct holding in Ideal Standard. This Comment also argues, however, that the Court should have expressly limited its holding to trademarks, distinguishing them from other forms of intellectual property. Part I presents the historical background that underlies the conflict between national trademark rights and the Free Movement of Goods principle within the European Union. Part II discusses the ECJ's doctrines before Ideal Standard, which attempted to reconcile this conflict, and examines the Ideal Standard modification of the consent doctrine based on control. Part III argues that, although the Court's principle of control is a thoughtful and practical way to delineate national trademark rights, it should have distinguished between the unique nature of trademarks from other intellectual properties. This Comment concludes that, while the ECJ impliedly recognized the distinct nature of trademarks in Ideal Standard, it should expressly state this distinction in order to provide clear guidance for companies and legal practitioners.
Recommended Citation
Gregory W. Hotaling,
Ideal Standard v. IHT: In the European Union, Must a Company Surrender its National Trademark Rights when it Assings its Trademark?,
19 Fordham Int'l L.J. 1178
(1995).
Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj/vol19/iss3/11