BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
Ir. Distillers/P O'Lionaird/P. Thompson/Mileeven/Lakeshore Food [1994] IECA 287 (25th February, 1994)
COMPETITION
AUTHORITY
Notification
Nos.
(1) CA/970/92E
-
Irish
Distillers Ltd/Peadar O'Lionaird
(2) CA/975/92E
-
Irish
Distillers Ltd/Phil Thompson
(3) CA/980/92E
-
Irish
Distillers Ltd/Mileeven Ltd
(4) CA/971/92E
-
Irish
Distillers Ltd/Lakeshore Foods Ltd
Decision
No. 287
Price £0.90
Price
£1.40 incl. postage
Notifications
Nos.
(1) CA/970/92E - Irish
Distillers Ltd/Peadar O'Lionaird
(2) CA/975/92E - Irish
Distillers Ltd/Phil Thompson
(3) CA/980/92E - Irish
Distillers Ltd/Mileeven Ltd
(4) CA/971/92E - Irish
Distillers Ltd/Lakeshore Foods Ltd
Decision
No. 287
Introduction
1. Notification
was made by Irish Distillers Group plc (IDG) on 30 September 1992 with a
request for certificates under
Section 4(4) of the
Competition Act, 1991 or in
the event of a refusal by the Competition Authority to issue certificates, a
request for licences under
Section 4(2) in respect of 4 Trade Mark Usership
agreements between Irish Distillers Ltd and 4 other parties.
The
Facts
(a)
Subject of Notification
2. The
notification concerns trade mark usership agreements, whereby Irish Distillers
Ltd, the owner of the trade marks relating to its whiskey brands, has granted
non-exclusive licences to 4 parties to use the trade marks in connection with
the manufacture and marketing of certain food products within the State.
(b) The
Parties Involved
3. Irish
Distillers Ltd (IDL) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Irish Distillers Group plc
(IDG) which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of Groupe Pernod SA. IDG is
comprised of companies engaged in the distilling of whiskey and other spirits
and in the distribution of spirits, wines and other beverages. Other
businesses include grocery wholesale. IDG's annual turnover in 1992 was
£302m, of which turnover within the State was £200m. IDL is engaged
in the distilling, blending and distribution of whiskey including its main
brands, Jameson, Powers and Paddy.
4. The
user parties to each of the notified agreements are as follows:
(i) Mr
Peadar O'Lionaird, Macroom, Co Cork who is a producer of preserves and is
engaged in the manufacture, promotion and sale of Irish Whiskey Marmalade.
(ii) Mr
Phil Thompson, Carrigaline, Co Cork who is also a producer of preserves and
like Mr O'Lionaird is engaged in the manufacture, promotion and sale of Irish
Whiskey Marmalade.
(iii)
Mileeven Ltd, Piltown, Co Kilkenny which is a producer of preserves and honey
products and is engaged in the manufacture, promotion and sale of Irish Whiskey
Honey.
(iv) Lakeshore
Foods Ltd, Nenagh, Co Tipperary, which is engaged in the manufacture,
production and sale of prepared mustards.
(c) The
Notified Agreements
Irish
Distillers Ltd/Peadar O'Lionaird
5. The
Usership Agreement notified was made on 18 May 1990 and provides for the grant
of a non-exclusive licence by IDL, the owner, to Peadar O'Lionaird, the user,
to use the Jameson trademarks in connection with the manufacture and marketing
of Irish Whiskey marmalade in Ireland. The main provisions of the agreement
are as follows:-
(a) Under
clause 1 the user recognises that all right, title and interest in and the
exclusive right to use the trademark is vested in IDL and under clause 2 the
user agrees "not to challenge the validity of, or IDL's ownership of the Trade
Mark or copyright in the presentation thereof."
(b) Under
clause 3 the user agrees "It shall not claim or acquire the ownership of, a
licence to, or any right itself to licence the Trade Mark or any brand name,
trade mark, trade name, patent, emblem, design, copyright, device, label, model
or other industrial or intellectual property right of IDL, or any company
related to it ......"
(c) Under
clause 4 IDL grants to the user a non-exclusive licence to reproduce and use
the trade marks in the Territory (Ireland) for the sole purpose of the
manufacture and sale of the Product in a manner and form which shall be
approved in writing by IDL subject to the following conditions
(i) User
shall use Jameson Whiskey exclusively for production of the product
(ii) The
product will conform to such standard of quality, design etc as IDL may
prescribe (the Standard of Quality)
(iii) The
labelling of the product shall contain an acknowledgement that the Jameson mark
of IDL is used under licence
(d) Clause
9 provides that "In the event that any Product shall at any time fail to meet
the Standard of Quality, User shall immediately withdraw same. In the event
that IDL determines that the product fails to meet the Standard of Quality it
may terminate this agreement by written notice to user and User shall cease its
use of the Trade Mark and the designation Irish Whiskey within 30 days of such
notice".
(e) Clause
14 provides that IDL shall have the right to terminate the Agreement forthwith
by giving written notice to the user if the user commits a material breach of
the agreement, or if there is a change in control of user or if user enters
into liquidation, receivership etc.
(f) Under
Clause 12 the agreement ".... shall continue in effect until terminated by
either party by three months' notice in writing expiring on any date."
There
is no provision in the agreement for the payment of royalties.
Irish
Distillers Ltd/Phil Thompson
6. The
Usership Agreement notified is dated 26 April 1989 and provides for the grant
of a non-exclusive licence by IDL, the owner, to Phil Thompson, the user, to
use "Paddy" Trade Marks in connection with the manufacture and marketing of
Irish Whiskey marmalade within Ireland. The agreement is similar to that
between IDL and Peadar O'Lionaird except for a requirement on Phil Thompson to
use Paddy Whiskey exclusively in the product.
Irish
Distillers/Mileeven Ltd
7. The
Usership Agreement notified is dated 13 September 1990 and provides for the
grant of a non-exclusive licence by IDL, the owner, to Mileeven Ltd, the User,
to use the "Jameson" Trade Marks in connection with the manufacture and
marketing of Irish Whiskey Honey in Ireland and elsewhere. The agreement is in
similar terms to that made between IDL and Peadar O'Lionaird.
Irish
Distillers Ltd/Lakeshore Foods Ltd
8. The
Usership Agreement notified is dated 18 December 1990 and provides for the
grant of a non-exclusive licence by IDL, the owner, to Lakeshore Foods Ltd, the
user, to use the "Jameson" Trade Mark in connection with the manufacture of
mustards in the State and marketing mustards in Ireland, UK, Canada and USA.
The Agreement is in similar terms to that between IDL and Peadar O'Lionaird.
The
Product and the Market
9. The
property that is the subject of the Usership Agreements is the property right
attaching to IDL's Jameson and Paddy trade marks. These are the only products
being "handed over" under the agreements by the owners to other persons to use.
10. Under
the usership agreement a non-exclusive licence to use trade marks has been
granted to 4 users. The users are not engaged in the marketing of Irish
whiskey but in products which contain whiskey as a minor ingredient. The users
are not therefore in competition with IDL. The usership agreements relate to
the use of IDL trade marks in the manufacture and marketing of food products
containing Irish whiskey. By the use of the trademarks the users seek to
enhance the marketability and range of their own products by the use of
familiar whiskey brand names but the markets in which they operate could be
regarded as small specialist sub sectors of overall markets for preserves or
mustard aimed primarily at the tourism trade. In essence therefore the
Authority considers that, while the licensing of Jameson and Paddy trade marks
is the subject of the agreement, the relevant markets, where competition issues
might arise, are the tourism related specialist segments of the markets for
preserves and mustard.
(d) Submissions
of the Parties
11. Irish
Distillers Group plc maintain that the notified agreements do not have as their
object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in
the State or in any part of the State for the following reasons:-
(a) the
agreements are not with competing manufacturers and the parties involved are
not connected in any respect.
(b) the
agreements relate solely to the use of IDL property and do not restrict the
users involved from normal commercial conduct or activity other than in the use
of IDL property.
(c) the
users derive economic benefits from identifying their products with the high
quality standards associated by consumers with the IDL brand names and images.
The requirement in the agreements to indicate that the Trade Marks are used
under licence further reinforces this association in the minds of consumers.
(d) the
association of the products of small producers such as the users involved in
the notification with international brand names such as IDL products, enables
the user to build up market share more quickly and to compete more effectively
in the market place than might otherwise be the case without the association.
(e) there
is no direct economic advantage to IDL accruing from the notified agreements.
(f) the
use of the IDL brand names on the products of the users is complimentary to the
product's image and secures its attractiveness to consumers.
(g) the
notified agreements are indispensable if the users involved wish to associate
their particular products with IDL trade marks and designs.
EU
Position on Trade Mark Licences
12. Very
few cases involving trade mark licences have been the subject of an EU
Commission decision and the decisions recorded related to cases which also
involved the manufacture and sale by the licensees of products similar to those
produced by the original owners of the trade marks. Restrictions in the Campari
[1]
licensing agreement which were found not to come within the prohibition of
Article 85(1) included requirements relating to the suitability of plant, the
quality of the product and the purchase of certain secret raw materials for
incorporation in the final product. In the Moosehead/Whitbread
[2]
decision, which related to an exclusive licence to Whitbread to produce and
market Moosehead beer within the UK, the EU Commission decided that certain
obligations on the licensee to maintain certain qualitative standards and the
trade mark no challenge clause did not fall within Article 85(1). The aspects
of these Agreements deemed by the Commission to fall within Article 85(1) - but
capable of exemption under Article 85(3) - were the exclusivity of the trade
mark licence and the prohibition on the licensee both in relation to active
sales outside the UK and on the production and marketing of other Canadian beers.
Assessment
13.
Section
4(1) of the
Competition Act, 1991 prohibits and renders void all agreements
between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted
practices which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or
distortion of competition in trade in any goods or services in the State, or in
any part of the State.
The
Undertakings
14.
Section
3(1) of the
Competition Act defines an undertaking as "a person being an
individual, a body corporate or an unincorporated body of persons engaged for
gain in the production, supply or distribution of goods or the provision of a
service". Irish Distillers Group and its subsidiary Irish Distillers Ltd and
the four user parties, Peadar O'Lionaird, Phil Thompson, Mileeven Ltd and
Lakeshore Foods Ltd are all engaged for gain in the production, supply and
distribution of goods within the State and are therefore undertakings. The
notified agreements are therefore agreements between undertakings. The
agreements have effect within the State.
Applicability
of Section 4(1)
15. Design
and trade marks are property rights which are normally used by the owner for
ready market recognition, as a guarantee of quality and for
publicity/advertising purposes in relation to the marketing of the product.
The design/trade mark is often synonymous with the product itself and can
represent a very considerable investment by its promoter in the development of
the brand image and of its recognition and acceptance by the general consumer
public. In the case of many branded consumer products, including beverages
such as whiskey, the promotion of the brand name can be one of the main
marketing tools in the promotion of the product. In effect a trade mark,
particularly one related to a widely sold consumer product, can represent a
very valuable asset with the rights to it strongly preserved by its owner.
16. The
owner of a trade mark is normally under no obligation to permit its use by
another trader. He may allow its use by another trader whether by way of a
patent licensing agreement which would involve the production of a product
similar or identical to his branded product or by way of a usership agreement
to a manufacturer of a product which need not bear a particular relationship to
the branded product. The latter situation applies to the usership agreements
in this instance. The usership agreements state that IDL's primary benefit
from the users' use of the designs or trade marks will be an indirect benefit
from the advertisement of IDL's products and that it is of the utmost
importance to IDL that the quality image of its products be protected.
17. The
Trade Mark/Design usership agreements between Irish Distillers Ltd and the 4
users are not exclusive licences nor do they contain, while in force, any
prohibition on the production or marketing by the licensees of other products
similar to those covered by the licences. The obligations on the licensees
from the usership agreements only apply to the products of the licensees which
carry the IDL trade marks. Since the basic products involved i.e. marmalade,
honey or mustard are basically non whiskey products, the licensee is free to
produce and market them, even if whiskey is an added ingredient, without any
licence restrictions as long as it does not carry or is not marketed under the
IDL trade marks or designs.
18. Under
Clause 2 in the agreement with Peadar O'Lionaird an obligation is imposed on
the user not to challenge the validity of IDL's ownership of the Trade Mark. A
similar obligation appears in the other 3 agreements notified. The notifying
party has explained that IDL is the exclusive owner of the Trade Marks/Designs
set out in the relevant Usership Agreements and that expenditure is incurred in
promoting the quality and image associated with its products. In this regard
IDL has a policy which is aimed at protecting its Trade Marks and it does not
permit the use of its Trade Marks or Designs without written agreement. In
entering into such Trade Mark Usership Agreements the users are required to
conform with certain criteria and also to preserve the integrity of the
relevant Trade Mark. IDL, in entering into such Trademark Usership Agreement
provides an opportunity for the user to derive economic benefit from the use of
the relevant Mark in association with a particular product. In consideration
of IDL entering into such arrangements IDL requires its Marks to be protected
and the validity to be preserved. In this respect IDL requires the relevant
user to acknowledge its ownership of the relevant Mark and not to undermine or
challenge the Mark.
19. In
relation to a trademark non-challenge clause the EU Commission in the
Moosehead/Whitbread case stated
"A
clause in an exclusive trademark licence agreement obliging the licensee not to
challenge the ownership of a trademark .....does not constitute a restriction
on competition within the meaning of Article 85(1). Whether or not the
licensor or licensee has the ownership of the trademark, the use of it by any
other party is prevented in any event, and competition would thus not be
affected.
-
The validity of a trademark may be contested on any ground under national law,
and in particular on the grounds that it is generic or descriptive in nature.
In such an event, should the challenge be upheld, the trade mark may fall (in)
the public domain and may thereafter be used without restriction by the
licensee and any other party.
Such
a (non-challenge) clause may constitute a restriction of competition within the
meaning of Article 85(1), because it may contribute to the maintenance of a
trademark that would be an unjustified barrier to entry into a given market.
Moreover
in order for any restriction to fall under Article 85(1) it must be
appreciable. The ownership of a trademark only gives the holder the exclusive
right to sell products under that name. Other parties are free to sell the
product in question under a different trademark or treatment. Only where the
use of a well-known trademark would be an important advantage to any company
entering or competing in any given market and the absence of which therefore
constitutes a significant barrier to entry, would this clause which impedes the
licensee to challenge the validity of the trademark, constitute an appreciable
restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 85(1)."
20. As
indicated in paragraph 10 the relevant markets affected by the usership
agreements are those for the particular products of the licensees, i.e. small
specialised tourism related segments of the markets for marmalade, honey or
mustard, all containing whiskey as a minor ingredient. These products, whether
or not they contain Irish whiskey as an ingredient, may be freely marketed
without an IDL brand name and the Authority therefore takes the view that the
IDL trade marks could not provide any significant barrier to entry to those
markets.
21. Under
clause 4(i) of the Usership agreement involving O'Lionaird there is an
obligation on the licensee to use a particular brand of Irish Whiskey, Jameson
Irish Whiskey, as an ingredient in the product. Since the product is being
marketed under this trade mark and brand name the Authority would not regard
such an obligation as anti competitive. In fact since the particular brand is
shown in the labelling of the product as an ingredient it would be a breach of
consumer legislation not to use the brand. The same position applies to each
of the other 3 agreements which all contain similar clauses although in the
agreement relating to Phil Thompson the obligation relates to the use of Paddy
Whiskey.
22. Clause
9 of the Usership agreement involving Peadar O'Lionaird provides, that in the
event that IDL determines that the product fails to meet the standard of
quality it may terminate the agreement by written notice to the user and that
the user shall cease its use of the trade mark and the designation Irish
Whiskey within 30 days of such notice. A similar provision is inserted in the
other 3 user agreements. In view of the importance to IDL of the quality image
of their products associated with the promotion of their trade marks at very
considerable cost to IDL, the Authority could accept that IDL are entitled to
protect the value of their trade marks by measures to ensure that they are not
associated with an inferior product. In these circumstances the Authority does
not regard the withdrawal of a licence and a requirement to cease the use of
the trade mark as offending against
Section 4(1).
23. In
the event of IDL terminating the agreement with Peadar O'Lionaird in accordance
with clause 9, there would also be a requirement on O'Lionaird to cease use of
the designation "Irish Whiskey" on its products. A similar requirement is in
the other 3 agreements. However the designation "Irish Whiskey" is a generic
term defined in the Irish Whiskey Acts and is not the property of IDL. The
exercise of the prohibition under clause 9 would therefore require the users to
cease using a designation on their products which they would otherwise have
been able to use if they had not entered into the usership agreements. In
considering this aspect the Authority had regard to the fact that by use of the
IDL trade marks the users gain substantial benefit in the promotion and
marketing of their products while the benefit to IDL is at best very marginal.
There is the real risk that an inferior non whiskey product bearing an IDL
trade mark could impact unfavourably on the value and image of the trade mark
and, because of a past association of the product with the trade mark, there is
some risk that this would continue even if the IDL trade mark was removed but
the designation of Irish Whiskey retained. In any event the restriction on the
use of the designation would only arise if the product failed to meet the
quality standards prescribed by IDL. The Authority does not therefore believe
that the object of this provision is to prevent, restrict or distort
competition. The Authority is also of the view that the restriction on the use
of the designation in the circumstances is unlikely to have any perceptible
effect on competition and does not offend against
section 4(1).
The
Decision
24. In
the Authority's opinion, Irish Distillers Group plc, Irish Distillers Ltd and
the users, Peadar O'Lionaird, Phil Thompson, Mileeven Ltd and Lakeshore Foods
Ltd are undertakings and the notified usership agreements between these parties
are agreements between undertakings.
25. The
Authority considers that the notified agreements do not have the object or
effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition in trade in any
goods or services in the State or any part of the State. The Authority
therefore considers that the notified agreements between Irish Distillers Ltd
and Peadar O'Lionaird, Phil Thompson, Mileeven Ltd and Lakeshore Foods Ltd do
not offend against
Section 4(1) of the
Competition Act, 1991.
The
Certificate
26. The
Competition Authority has issued the following certificate.
The
Competition Authority certifies that in its opinion, on the basis of the facts
in its possession, the agreements set out below in relation to trade mark
usership notified under
section 7 on 30 September 1992 do not offend against
section 4(1) of the
Competition Act 1991:
(i)
Irish Distillers Ltd/Peadar O'Lionaird
-
CA/970/92E
(ii)
Irish Distillers Ltd/Phil Thompson
-
CA/975/92E
(iii)
Irish Distillers Ltd/Mileeven Ltd
-
CA/980/92E
(iv)
Irish Distillers Ltd/Lakeshore Foods Ltd
-
CA/971/92E
For
the Competition Authority
Des
Wall
Member
25
February 1994
[ ] 1 Campari
OJ 1978, L70/69
[ ]2 Moosehead/Whitbread
90/186/EEC OJ L100, 20.4.90 p.32/37
© 1994 Irish Competition Authority
BAILII:
Copyright Policy |
Disclaimers |
Privacy Policy |
Feedback |
Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IECompA/1994/287.html