What liability do freight forwarders have for trademark infringement in forwarded goods? : Focussed specifically on Swedish national rules in multimodal transport

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1 Introduction ... 1

1.1 Background ... 1

1.2 Problem formulation and purpose ... 2

1.3 Limitations ... 3

1.4 Method ... 3

1.5 Disposition ... 5

2 Freight forwarders ... 7

2.1 Introduction ... 7

2.2 Freight forwarder’s role in multimodal transport ... 7

2.2.1 Introduction ... 7

2.2.2 History ... 8

2.2.3 The development in recent years ... 9

2.3 Legal classifications of freight forwarders ... 10

2.3.2 Freight forwarders acting as carriers ... 10

2.3.3 Freight forwarders acting as agents ... 11

3 Multimodal transport ... 12

3.2 Differences between the United States and Europe ... 12

3.3 The network liability system and the uniform liability system ... 13

4 Bill of Lading ... 14

4.2 The need of Bills of Lading ... 14

4.3 Ocean Bills of Lading ... 15

4.4 Sea Waybills ... 16

5 International regulations for mode of transport ... 17

5.2 Incoterms 2000... 17

5.3 The Hague- and Hague-Visby Rules ... 18

5.4 The Hamburg Rules ... 19

5.5 CMR Convention ... 19

5.6 The 1967 UNIDROIT Draft Convention ... 20

5.7 FIATA Model Rules for Freight Forwarding Services ... 21

5.8 CISG ... 22

5.9 The MT Convention ... 22

5.10 UNCITRAL Adopted Draft Convention ... 23

5.11 International convention or an entirely new legal regime? ... 24

5.11.1The establishment of an international convention ... 24

5.11.2The establishment of an entirely new legal regime ... 25

6 Scandinavian regulations for freight forwarders ... 26

6.2 NSAB 2000 ... 26

(6)

6.2.2 Is there any liability for counterfeit or pirated goods? ... 27

6.3 The Swedish Maritime Code (Sjölagen) ... 28

6.3.2 Freight forwarders’ liability as carriers ... 29

6.4 The Swedish Trade Marks Act (Varumärkeslagen) ... 29

7 Freight forwarders’ liability for trademark

infringement ... 32

7.2 Counterfeit and pirated goods ... 32

7.3 Panasonic v. Tavatur, T 13838-08 ... 33

7.3.1 The factual background of the dispute ... 33

7.3.2 Panasonic’s and Tavatur’s claims ... 33

7.3.3 The District Court’s grounds for its judgment ... 34

7.3.4 The appeal to the Court of Appeal ... 36

7.4 Other European cases ... 37

7.4.1 C-316-05, Nokia Corp. v. Joacim Wärdell ... 37

7.4.2 C-495/09, Nokia v. HMRC ... 39

7.4.3 C-93/08, Schenker SIA v. Valsts ieņēmumu dienests ... 40

7.4.4 BGH Xa ZR 2/08 ... 41

7.4.5 The North-Face case (NJA 2008 s. 1082) ... 43

8 Insurance for freight forwarders ... 45

8.2 Insurance for Sea Transportation ... 45

8.3 Liability insurance and legal cost insurance ... 46

9 Customs’ actions to prevent trademark

infringements ... 48

9.2 Goods found to infringe an intellectual property right ... 48

9.3 The European Commission Report 2009 ... 49

9.4 Customs’ actions to prevent trademark infringement ... 50

10 Analysis... 52

10.1 Introduction ... 52 10.2 Panasonic v. Tavatur, T 13838-08 ... 52 10.3 De lege ferenda ... 54 10.3.1Introduction ... 54 10.3.2International Convention ... 54 10.3.3Contract Law... 56 10.3.4Liability insurance ... 57

10.3.5Improved legislation for customs ... 58

11 Conclusion ... 60

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

(29)

(30)

(31)

(32)

(33)

(34)

(35)

128

Prop.1960:167., Prop. 1969:168., Prop. 1976/77:96., Prop. 1986/87:39., Prop. 1992/93:48., Prop. 1993/94:122., Prop. 1994/95:59., Prop. 1995/96:26., Prop. 1995/96:177., Prop. 1999/2000:93., Prop. 2004/05:135., Prop. 2005/06:200., Prop. 2008/09:67.

(36)

129

38 §, Varumärkeslag (1960:644).

130_{Prop. 1998/99:11.}

131_{Prop. 1998/99:11, Page 57-58.} 132_{4 §, Varumärkeslag (1960:644).}

(37)

(38)

(39)

(40)

(41)

(42)

(43)

(44)

(45)

(46)

ņē

(47)

ņē

(48)

(49)

(50)

(51)

(52)

(53)

(54)

(55)

(56)

(57)

      

(58)

(59)

(60)

(61)

(62)

(63)

(64)

(65)

(66)

(67)

(68)

(69)

(70)

(71)