[47] See The Economic Consequences of the Choice of a Regime of Exhaustion in the Area of Trademarks, Final Report for DGXV of the European Commission, Feb. 8, 1999, at 25.
[48] Entscheidungen des Reichsgerichts in Zivilsachen [RGZ] 50, 229 (F. R. G.) 参 Carl Baudenbacher 上注32所引文。
[49] Cinzano & Co. Gmbh v. Java Kaffeegeschaffe Gmbh & Co., Judgment of Feb. 2, 1973, Fed. Sup. Ct. (F. R. G.), reprinted in 4 Int’l Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright L. [ⅡC] 432 (1973).
[50] Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] Gewerblicher Rechtsschutzz und Urheberrecht [GUUR] 1983, 177.
[51] Dyed Jeans, 1996 GURU Int. 721 (F. R. G.).
[52] Carl Baudenbacher 上注32所引文。
[53] 1974 OBI 84, 1971 GRUR Int. 90.
[54] 1984 OBI 24, 1981 GRUR Int. 369.
[55] 1991 OBI 257, 1992 GRUR Int. 467.
[56] Silhouette Int’l Schmied GmbH & Co. KG v. Harlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Case C-355/96, [1998] E.C.R. I-4799, [1998] 2 C.M.L.R. 953.
[57] 在Lux, BundesGerichts Entscheidungen [BGE] 78 II 164案中瑞士最高法院反对国际穷竭原则；而在Philips, BGE 86 II 270案中，瑞士最高法院又支持了国际穷竭原则。参Carl Baudenbacher 上注32所引文。
[58] BGE 105 Ⅱ 49.
[59] BGE 122 Ⅲ 49.
[60] 王传丽： 上注40所引文，页71。
[61] 韩国普赖斯俱乐部向韩国进口了一批LEVIS牌兰色裤子和TAYLORMADE牌高尔夫球棒，由于其诱人的价格在韩国热销，引起了LEVIS 和TAYLORMADE商标独占许可人的担心，韩国海关依据
海关法第
146条2款“根据
商标法规定，任何侵犯注册商标的商品不能出口或进口”的规定，暂时扣留了普赖斯俱乐部的结关单。
[62] 耿文英： “韩国新规定允许平行进口”， 载《世界知识产权动态》1996年第2期。
[63] See Border Enforcement Regulation Revised to Allow Parallel Importation, BNA Pat. Trademark & Copyright L. Daily, Jan.16, 1996.
[64] Remus Innovation Forschungs-Und Abfasanlagen-Produktionsgesellschaft mbH & Anor v. Hong Boon Siong & Ors, 1991-1 S.L.R. 179, 1998.
[65] Section 29 of the Singapore Act provides as follows:
(1)Notwithstanding section 27, a registered trade mark is not infringed by the use of the trade mark in relation to goods which have been put on the market, whether in Singapore or outside Singapore Act, under that trade mark by the proprietor of the registered trade mark or with his express or implied consent (conditional or otherwise).
(2)Subsection (1) does not apply where the condition of the goods has been changed or impaired after they have been put on the market, and the use of the registered trade mark in relation to those goods is detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the registered trade mark.
[66]莫纪平、谈建俊： “商标权领域中的平行进口问题探析”， 载《当代法学》2000年第2期。
[67] 同上注。
[68] Tait R. Swanson, 上注46所引文, P 347.
[69] Article 92(Ⅱ) states:
The registration of a trademark will have no effects against … any person trading with, distributing, acquiring or using the product to which the registered trademark is applied after said product has been legally introduced into the market by the holder of the registered trademark or by the person to whom a license has been granted.
[70] 林世芬： “商标平行输入之民事损害赔偿问题”， 载保护智慧财产权委员会（编辑）： 《智慧财产权案例判决选辑》， 经济部中央标准局，中华民国八十五年五月，页14 – 18。
[71] 同上注。
[72] Article 1(1) states:
The countries to which this Convention applies constitute a Union for the protection of industrial property.
[73] 《与贸易有关的知识产权协定》(TRIPs)第二条第一款规定：就本协定的第二部分、第三部分和第四部分而言，各成员方应遵守《巴黎公约》（1967）第1条至第12条和第19条。（Article 2.1 states; In respect of Parts Ⅱ,Ⅲ and Ⅳ of this Agreement, Members shall comply with Articles 1 through 12,and Article 19,of Paris Convention(1967).）
[74] Article 6(3) states:
A mark duly registered in a country of the Union shall be regarded as independent of marks registered in the other countries of the Union, including the country of origin.
[75] 例如有些学者认为：“权利独立原则”是指专利权或商标权在一国的存在与在其他国家的存在相互间没有依赖关系。但这并不意味着在国外发生的事实情况对国内的权利没有任何意义的或影响。那种认为巴黎公约的地域性原则可以推出……国际穷竭论应被禁止的观点，是站不住脚的。 参 余翔：上注23所引文， 页52。
[76] Article 16.1 states:
The owner of a registered trademark shall have the exclusive right to prevent all third partied not having the owner’s consent from using in the course of trade identical or similar signs for goods or services which are identical or similar to those likelihood of confusion. In case of the use of an identical sign for identical goods or services, a likelihood of confusion shall be presumed.…
[77] Article 6 Exhaustion:
For the purpose of dispute settlement under this Agreement, subject to the provisions of Articles 3 and 4 nothing in this Agreement shall be used to address the issue of the exhaustion of intellectual property rights.
[78] 黄晖： “论商标权利用尽及商品平行进口”， 载郑成思（主编）： 《知识产权研究》（第八卷，1999年11月）， 中国方正出版社， 页268—269。
[79] The First Council Directive of December 21,1988 to Approximate the Laws of the Member States relating to Trade Marks (89/104) [1989] O.J. L40/1, Art. 7:
“(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 trader mark by the proprietor or with his consent.
(2) Paragraph 1 shall not apply where there exists legitimate reasons for the proprietor to oppose further commercialisation with the goods, especially where the condition of the goods is changed or impaired after they have been put on the market.”
[80]莫纪平、谈建俊： 上注66所引文。
[81] Case 16/74: Centrafarm BV et al. v. Winthrop BV, [1974] European Court Reports 1183, [74] 2 Common Market Law Reports 480.
[82] 同上注56。
[83] Sebago Inc. and Ancienne Maison Dubois et Fils SA v. GB-Unic SA [Case C-173/98], 转引自 NG-LOY WEE LOON, Exhaustion of Rights in Trade Mark Law: The English and Singapore Models Compared, (Vol. 22, Issue 7)European Intellectual Property Review 320 (July 2000).
[84] David Perkins & Marleen Van Kerckhove, European Community and International Exhaustion of Grey, PLI Order No. G0-00CW September, 2000, Practising Law Institute: Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks, and Literary Property Course Handbook Series.
[85] Case C-10/89: SA CNL-SUCAL NV v. HAG GF AG, [1990] European Court ReportsⅠ-3711.
[86] Case C-9/93: IHT Internationale Herztechnik GmbH et al. v. Ideal Standard GmbH et al., [1994] European Court ReportsⅠ-2789.
[87] Case C-103/77: Hoffmann-La Roche v. Centrafarm, [1978] European Court Reports 1139.
[88] Case 3/78 : Centrafarm v. American Home Products, [1979] 1 CMLR 326.
[89] Pfizer v. Eurim-Pharm, [1979] 1 CMLR 406.
[90] Cases C-427/93,C-429/93 and C-436/93, Case C-232/94 and Cases C-71/94,C-73/94, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Others v. Paranova, [1996] European Court ReportsⅠ-3514.
[91] Case C-349/95: Ballantine v. Loendersloot, [1998] CMLR 1015.
[92] Case C-379/97: Upjohn v. Paranova, [1999].
[93] David Perkins & Marleen Van Kerckhove, supra note 84.
[94]黄晖：上注78所引文，页275。
[95] MAG Instrument Inc. v. California Trading Co. Norway, Ulsteen, Case E-2/97, 1997 Rep. EFTA Ct. 127, [1998] 1 C.M.L.R. 331.
[96]王传丽： 上注40所引文， 页74。北美自由贸易区协定第1708条规定，根据商标注册人要求，双方当事人必须防止在商业中在相同或类似货物上使用与注册商标相混淆的类似商标；在相同货物或服务上使用相同商标可推断为引起混淆。为保持商标注册之目的，承认第三者使用商标，如果该使用是在商标所有人控制下。安地斯共同市场第344号决议规定允许带有相同商标的货物的平行进口，条件是处于安地斯共同市场成员国的不同的商标所有人同意在不导致各自产品的产地发生相混淆的情况下使用它。比尼卢经济联盟的统一
商标法第
13条A3规定，商标专用权不包含反对商标所有人或被许可人将商标使用于在此商标下投放市场的商品之权，但以不改变商品情况为限。
