European Competition Law provides a wide-ranging review of the European rules relating to competition: restrictive agreements, abuse of a dominant position, impact of intellectual property rights, procedure, merger control, State aid.

European Competition Law

Under Article 345 TFEU, EU law cannot challenge the existence of a property right - and more particularly an intellectual property right - that has been legally acquired under national regulations. In the absence of any willful anticompetitive act, the existence of such a right will not amount to a per se infringement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU , despite the restrictions on competition that resu …

Existence/Exercise of intellectual property rights

Under Article 345 TFEU, EU law cannot challenge the existence of a property right - and more particularly an intellectual property right - that has been legally acquired under national regulations. In the absence of any willful anticompetitive act, the existence of such a right will not amount to a per se infringement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU , despite the restrictions on competition that result from exclusive rights in general. According to the Court , it is even “an essential element in the system of undistorted competition which the Treaty seeks to establish and maintain” . Thus, the existence of a patent cannot in itself be relied on for the finding of an infringement of Article 102 TFEU where there is no abusive exercise of such right . A license-holder may legally rely on the existence of plant-variety rights to refuse to entrust “basic” seeds to a third party . The owner of a copyright who grants an exclusive right to exhibit a film for a specific period in the territory of a Member State does not violate Article 101 TFEU . Lastly, a trade mark right, as a legal status, does not fall within the prohibition of Article 101(1) .

In contrast, the exercise of an intellectual property right can lead to the violation of the competition rules where, by exceeding its proprietor's legal rights, it is accompanied by anticompetitive behavior or is part of an anticompetitive plan. Such is the case where in conjunction with an agreement appointing the license-holder sole distributor, the exercise of an intellectual property right ensures absolute territorial protection for that license-holder . Likewise, the exercise of a trade mark right might fall within the ambit of the prohibition if the effects of the concerted behavior go beyond those inherent in the trade mark right . Since video game publishers' copyrights do not prevent Article 101 TFEU from being applied to the conduct in question or from classifying it as a restriction by object, the Commission was able to decide that, in the relevant legal context, the use of geo-blocking keys to make it materially impossible to activate or use the games in question, or to import them into other EEA territories, constitutes a restriction of competition by object . Lastly, patent settlement agreements the existence of which are not affected by Article 101(1) TFEU, may nevertheless fall within the prohibitions contained in that article insofar as the circumstances in which they are exercised are intended to delay the market entry of competing products .

See Case 40/70 Sirena v Eda [1971] ECR 69, LawLex200400002879JBJ: for trademarks; also, Case 51/75 EMI Records v CBS United Kingdom [1976] ECR 811, LawLex200400002893JBJ; Case 86/75 EMI Records v CBS Grammofon [1976] ECR 871, LawLex200400002898JBJ; Case 24/67 Parke, Davis & Co. v Probel and others [1968] ECR 81, LawLex200500005415JBJ: for patents; Commission Decision No 71/224/EC of 2 June 1971, GEMA (not available in English): for a copyright.

Case C-10/89 CNL-SUCAL v HAG [1990] ECR I-3711, LawLex200500004633JBJ.

Case T-472/13 H. Lundbeck A/S,  Judgment of 8 September 2016, LawLex201600001398JBJ; Case T-470/13 Merck KGaA, Judgment of 8 September 2016 LawLex201600001399JBJ.

Here the economic analysis comes close to the legal analysis. Because they promote innovation or creation and guarantee the differentiation of products, intellectual property rights have pro-competitive effects. At the legal level, it would be unfair to punish the holder of a right just because he has exercised prerogatives attached to such right.

Case 24/67 Parke, Davis & Co. v Probel and others [1968] ECR 81, LawLex200500005415JBJ.

Commission Decision No 1999/6/EC of 14 December 1998, Sicasov, LawLex200500004747JBJ.

Case 262/81, Coditel v Ciné-Vog Films [1982] ECR 3381, LawLex200500005407JBJ.

Case 40/70 Sirena v Eda [1971] ECR 69, LawLex200400002879JBJ; Case 51/75 EMI Records v CBS United Kingdom [1976] ECR 811, LawLex200400002893JBJ ; Case 96/75 EMI Records v CBS Schallplatten [1976] ECR 913, LawLex200400002895JBJ and Case 86/75 EMI Records v CBS Grammofon [1976] ECR 871, LawLex200400002898JBJ.

Case 51/75 EMI Records v CBS United Kingdom [1976] ECR 811, LawLex200400002893JBJ; Case 258/78 Nungesser v Commission [1982] ECR 2015, LawLex200500004104JBJ; Case 53/87 CICRA and others v Renault [1988] ECR 6039, LawLex200400002942JBJ.

Case 40/70 Sirena v Eda [1971] ECR 69, LawLex200400002879JBJ; Case 86/75 EMI Records v CBS Grammofon [1976] ECR 871, LawLex200400002898JBJ.

Case T-172/21, Judgment of 27 September 2023, LawLex202300011952JBJ.

European Competition Law

160. Existence/Exercise of intellectual property rights

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

160. Existence/Exercise of intellectual property rights

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise