Davidoff案使得Silhouette案以来欧盟法在平行进口问题上所保持的反对商标权的国际用尽坚持区域用尽的立场至少有所松动。没有在分销协议中对再销售行为做出明确限制即构成默示同意平行进口，从而丧失利用商标权阻止平行进口的权利，从法律效果上看，等于是从“后门”（back door）引入了商标权的国际用尽标准。[25] Davidoff案对欧盟法在平行进口与商标权问题上的规范做出了新的解释和发展。
结 语
欧盟通过《欧共体条约》竞争法规则所维护的“市场统一原则”基本排除了商标权人通过商标权来阻止欧盟内部平行进口的可能性，并且通过《欧共体
商标法一号指令》的形式确立了“共同体范围内商标权利用尽原则”，但是对于来自欧盟外部的平行进口，欧洲法院在Silhouette案认可商标权人可以行使商标权制止平行进口，从而表明欧盟不采取“商标权的国际用尽原则”的立场。至此，欧盟在平行进口和商标权问题上的做法可以概括为：采取“商标权的区域用尽原则”，支持区域内的平行进口，维护共同市场统一，繁荣成员国间贸易；不采取“商标权的国际用尽原则”，认同商标权人有权阻止来自区域外的平行进口。（全文完）
【注释】 根据美国乔治华盛顿大学知识产权研究中心 Wegner教授的说法 ,平行进口是指一国未被授权的进口商从外国的知识产权所有者手中购得商品并未经批准输入本国 ,而该知识产权以前已受到了本国的法律保护。http://www.law.gwu.edu/tech/(01/06/02).
尤其是药品，许多国家对药品采取严格的价格管制（pricing controls），因此价格较低，而有些国家则允许高价。参见： Parallel Imports in Europe, Hugh Brett, European Intellectual Property Review, May 2000. http://www.derwent.com/ipmatters/features/parallel.html(01/05/02).
有关欧盟和欧共体两个概念的不同参见，Jo Shaw, Law of the Europea Union (Third Edition), St Martin’s Press.
本文没有利用“商标权的地域性原则”来论证平行进口是否具有合法性，原因是笔者认为该原则和“商标权一国用尽”在论证平行进口的合法性问题上具有相通之处，引入“商标权一国用尽原则”就无需再利用“商标权的地域性原则”。
但是在此标准下，商标权人是否可以制止来自域外的平行进口不是十分明确的，欧盟成员国在此问题上看法不一，直到后来的Silhouette案才对此做了明确的回答，肯定了商标权人阻止来自域外平行进口的权利。
See Treaty establishing the European Community，Article 2 (ex Article 2)，http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/treaties/dat/ec_cons_treaty_en.pdf(06/05/02).
Article 28 (ex Article 30)“Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States.”
Article 29 (ex Article 34)“Quantitative restrictions on exports, and all measures having equivalent effect, shall be prohibited between Member States.”
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/treaties/dat/ec_cons_treaty_en.pdf(06/05/02).
Article 30 (ex Article 36)
The provisions of Articles 28 and 29 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on grounds of……the protection of industrial and commercial property. Such prohibitions or restrictions shall not, however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/treaties/dat/ec_cons_treaty_en.pdf(06/05/02).
Case 16-74,Centrafarm v Winthrop (1974) ECR 1183.
Case 238/1987, Volvo v Veng (1988) ECR 6211; Case 102/1977, Hoffmann – La Roche v Centrafarm (1978) ECR 1139.
欧共体首次确立“共同体范围内商标权利用尽原则”是在1974年的Centrafarm v. Winthrop案中， Case16/74Centrafarm v. WinthropE.C.R.1183.
Article 7:Exhaustion of the rights conferred by a trade mark
1. The trade mark shall not entitle the proprietor to prohibit its use in relation to goods which have been put on the market in the Community under that trade mark by the proprietor or with his consent.
Article 7: 2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply where there exist legitimate reasons for the proprietor to oppose further commercialization of the goods, especially where the condition of the goods is changed or impaired after they have been put on the market.
Case C-3/78, Centrafarm v American Home Products and Case C-102/77, Hoffman – La Roche v Centrafarm, endorsed and expanded on in Bristol-Myers Squibb v Paranova (joined Cases C-71/94, C-72/94 and C-73/94).
Parallel Imports in Europe – Recent Developments－a report by Isabel Britton and Anna Carboni，Linklaters & Alliance.
Case C-379/97, Pharmacia & Upjohn SA v Paranova A/S (1999) ETMR 97.
See Joint answer to Written question givenby Mr. Vanni d’Archifari on behalf of the Commission O.J.C.340/37.
case C-355/96:Silhoucttc International Schimicd GmbH& Co. KG v. Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH2 C.M.L.R.953.
See Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, delivered on 29 January,1998 in Silhouette.
] Frederick M.Abbott and D.W.Feer Verkade:
