Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
7.199
Article 24(3) provides that the provision of the guarantee referred to in point (a)
of Art 24(2) shall not affect the other legal remedies available to the holder of
the decision.
(h) Goods for destruction
Article 25(1) provides that goods to be destroyed under Art 23 or 26 shall not
be:
7.200
7.201
(a) released for free circulation, unless customs authorities, with the agreement of the
holder of the decision, decide that it is necessary in the event that the goods are to
be recycled or disposed of outside commercial channels, including for awareness-
raising, training and educational purposes. The conditions under which the goods
can be released for free circulation shall be determined by the customs authorities;
(b) brought out of the customs territory of the Union;
(c) exported;
(d) re-exported;
(e) placed under a suspensive procedure;
(f ) placed in a free zone or free warehouse.
7.202
Article 25(2) provides that the customs authorities may allow the goods referred
to in Art 25(1) to be moved under customs supervision between different places
within the customs territory of the Union with a view to their destruction under
customs control.
(i) Removal of trade marks or geographical indications
An issue which arose under the TRIPS Agreement was whether goods could be
considered to have been destroyed by the removal of infringing trade marks. In
China - Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property
Rights
,
102
the Panel was concerned with Art 27 of the Chinese Customs IPR
Regulations, which allowed confiscated goods that could not be used for social
public welfare undertakings and where the right holder had no intention to buy
them to be auctioned off with infringing features eradicated. With regard to
trade mark-infringing goods, China confirmed that the elimination of infring-
ing features referred to the removal of infringing trade marks. The question
arose whether the Chinese Regulations provided for no more than the 'simple'
removal of a trade mark within the meaning of the fourth sentence of Art 46 of
the TRIPS Agreement. China argued that its measures did not provide for
'simple' removal of the trade mark because they also provide an opportunity for
the trade mark right holder to comment prior to auction. The Panel noted that
the word 'simple' could be defined as 'with nothing added; unqualified; neither
7.203
102
Report of the Panel, WT/DS362/R, 26 January 2009.
