## Facts

- Rioglass SA, established in Spain, manufactured motor-vehicle spare parts (including windscreens and windows), some bearing automobile manufacturers’ trademarks.
- The goods were lawfully manufactured in Spain and were shipped from Spain to Poland (then a non-Member State).
- Transremar SL, a Spanish transport company, carried the goods by road through France under customs control while in transit.
- French customs detained the shipment under national intellectual-property rules allowing detention of goods suspected of trademark infringement upon request by a trademark holder.
- Rioglass and Transremar sought emergency relief to lift the detention; they ultimately obtained an appellate order requiring customs to release the goods.
- The French customs administration appealed to the Cour de cassation, which referred a question to the Court of Justice concerning the compatibility of the detention procedure with EU free-movement rules.

## Issues

1. Whether EU free-movement rules apply to goods lawfully manufactured in one Member State that merely transit through another Member State en route to a non-Member country.
2. Whether Article 28 EC (now Article 34 TFEU) prohibits customs detention, based on suspected trademark infringement, of such transit goods.
3. Whether such a restriction can be justified under Article 30 EC (now Article 36 TFEU) as protection of industrial and commercial property.

## Decision

- The Court held that goods lawfully manufactured in a Member State and in transit through another Member State fall within Articles 28–30 EC even if destined for a non-Member country.
- The Court ruled that Article 28 EC precludes customs authorities from detaining, under national IP procedures and on suspicion of trademark infringement, goods lawfully manufactured in another Member State that are merely transiting to a non-Member country.
- The Court concluded that Article 30 EC does not justify the detention because mere transit, without any intention to place the goods on the transit state’s market, does not implicate the specific subject matter of the trademark right.

## Legal Principles

- Free-movement prohibitions apply to measures that hinder the transit of goods between Member States, including transit shipments destined for third countries.
- A national customs detention mechanism grounded in suspected trademark infringement can constitute a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction when applied to lawfully manufactured EU goods in transit.
- The industrial-and-commercial-property exception does not justify restrictions on transit goods where the goods are not intended for marketing in the transit Member State and the conduct does not affect the trademark’s specific subject matter (control over first marketing/use on the protected market).

## Conclusion

EU law prohibits a Member State from using trademark-based customs detention procedures to stop the transit of goods lawfully manufactured in another Member State when those goods are merely passing through its territory on the way to a non-EU market, because such interference restricts free movement and is not justified by trademark protection.


Administration des Douanes et Droits Indirects v. Rioglass SA (Transremar SL), Case C-115/02, [2003] E.C.R. I-12705 (C.J.E.U. 2003)