ľ¹Ï¸£ÀûÓ°ÊÓ

On Monday, October 27, Jorn Torenbosch will defend his dissertation on whether the Dutch ‘slave imitation doctrine’ is in conflict with various European laws and regulations.

The Dutch slavish imitation doctrine entails that imitation of a product is unlawful if it creates an unnecessary risk of confusion. In the dissertation, it is examined whether the Dutch slavish imitation doctrine is in conflict with European design law, European trademark law, the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, the right of free movement of goods (Article 34 TFEU), Article 2(1) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and/or Article 10bis(3)(1) of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.

The conclusion is reached that slavish imitation doctrine is not in conflict with European design law, the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive, Article 2(1) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and/or Article 10bis(3)(1) of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.

However, the slavish imitation doctrine is in conflict with European trademark law because it (i) provides additional protection for distinctive signs that guarantee the origin of the goods and (ii) constitutes an obstacle to the purpose of provisions of European trademark law. Finally, it is concluded that the slavish imitation doctrine is in conflict with article 34 TFEU, because the doctrine is not necessary and disproportionately hinders the free movement of goods in the European Union.

Since the slavish imitation doctrine is in conflict with European law, it may no longer be applied in the Netherlands.