This doctrine concerns the internal market. Once the first sale is made on the domestic market, the right holder is not allowed to obtain new profits or claim rights to a subsequent transaction that takes place for that purpose. This doctrine in principle prevents the right holder from collecting several profits from the same transaction or property he once sold. It therefore protects the party`s profit rights, resulting in the subsequent sale of goods. Therefore, under the above provisions, all goods imported in violation of the above may be suspended by customs and the police have the right to detain them. Moreover, the action can only be invoked if the above conditions are met. If a contract is entered into without registration, the contract is not valid from the beginning. Parallel imports are important both in the legal and economic fields. The legal connotation states that the value of a trademark holder should not be affected by the fact that it is a source of deception and confusion in the minds of consumers. However, the economic aspect of parallel imports favours the cross-border availability of goods and, in return, prevents the possibility of a monopoly in a given market. The United Arab Emirates is no stranger to the phenomenon of parallel imports. However, the concept of parallel importation is not recognized by UAE trademark laws.
Therefore, in order to stop parallel imports into the agency country, laws can be applied to prohibit the same thing. Agency laws allow an agent to have exclusive sales rights in a country under the terms of the contract. In order to benefit from the appeal under this law, the agency agreement should be registered with the Ministry of Economy, whose absence may nullify the agreement. Parallel imports to the United Arab Emirates are under scrutiny. In addition, with respect to English and Japanese duties, there is no provision in the TRIPS ON THE ADPS agreement that excludes the importation of goods subject to notification of import restrictions. Such behaviour is not contrary to trademark rights, since the principle of exhaustion applies: after the first sale in an EU or EEA Member State, a rights holder cannot object to the distribution of its products. Nor is such conduct contrary to competition law – since a prohibition of sale is not valid, the violation of such a ban by a third party is not contrary to the principles of fair business practice. However, the situation is almost entirely different when the rights holder has set up a selective distribution system that, formally and regulated, limits the ownership of its own distribution network to points of sale (or to sales methods or terms of sale) with specific qualitative characteristics. Such a system is considered compatible in terms of cartels and abuse of dominance where necessary for technical reasons – for example, some complex products may require specific customer service that not all retailers can provide. Similarly, cartel and abuse of dominance rules are an exception where the reputation and reputation of the brand must be preserved, provided that distributors are selected on the basis of objective and qualitative criteria.
These criteria may include not only the “capacity, competence, professionalism and reliability of distributors,” but also “the location of their subsidiaries” and their “ability to manage an appropriate set of products.” (7) However, the Union`s jurisprudence has followed a relatively rigid interpretation in order to prevent the number of distribution points – that is, a mere quantitative restriction – from being presented as a reference to a form of selective distribution.