Answered>Order 21638

Need an argumentative essay on EU LAW /Free Movement of Goods. Needs to be 8 pages. Please no plagiarism.

Download file to see previous pages…

member state. This paper examines rights of the IP holders and buyers trading in the EU and various principles involved in the light of IPR protection a holder is entitled to as a reward for dedication of his resources and efforts towards development of his product with quality. Internal market Article 14 of the EC treaty seeks to create an Internal Market without internal borders so as to facilitate free movement of goods, persons, service and capital known as “four freedoms:. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has been consistently nullifying all national laws and practices of member states that militate against the said four freedoms ever since the Dassonvile decision in which the ECJ has stated that laws of the member states that hinder free movement of goods are to be treated as imposing restrictions (quantitative). 1. This is contrary to article 28 (ex article 32) which prohibits import restrictions among the community members. However the Dassonvile interpretation was later narrowed down by exclusion of certain selling arrangements from the purview of article 28 by what is known as Keck judgement 2 Public interest reason was preferred to free movement of goods in this case. Problem arises when there is conflict between the two articles which are both legitimate i.e free movement of goods and exceptions to free movement respectively. …

If it is to be considered that article 30 is in complete derogation of article 28 then there is no meaning in the principle of internal market which the EU is committed to as most of goods that come to the market are tagged with intellectual property rights. Articles 28 and 30 are now the articles 34 and 36 of TFEU. ECJ has justified its interference in respect of IPR in order to preserve and perpetuate the Internal Market and avoid separation of EC into several national markets. The ECJ foresaw the possibility of IP R holders abusing the exclusive rights so as to prevent free movement of his goods from one Member State to another. At the same time, ECJ felt the need to protect the IPR holders as a reward for their efforts and also to ensure free movement of goods within the community. In Deutsche Grammophon Gesellschaft mbH v Metro-SB-GroBmarkte GmbH &amp. co, KG3, ECJ declared that national laws perpetuating the IPR rights would defeat the very basic purpose of the treaty. To overcome this situation, The ECJ found an approach what is known as “splitting the IPR into twoa. The existence of an intellectual property right (protection of ownership as such) and b) the use of intellectual property right (limitations on the use of an IP right)4, although it has been countered that existence and use of a right is not possible since the existence logically covers the use also. But this is quite misleading since an IP has different specific factors from that of any other property wherein rights of the owner terminate once the property is disposed while in an IP, certain rights such as moral rights are inalienable and thus the rights last with the previous owner even after the property is disposed.