In Germany, the Bundesgerichtshof has decided that the doctrine of international exhaustion regulates parallel imports under the aforementioned European rules. As a result, they adopted a separate statement on TRIPS and public health. They agreed that the TRIPS agreement would not prevent members from taking public health protection measures. They stressed the ability of countries to use the flexibilities built into the TRIPS agreement, including compulsory licences and parallel imports. And they agreed to extend drug protection exemptions for least developed countries until 2016. In the United States, the courts have established that parallel imports are legal. [11] In the case of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley- Sons, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court found that the doctrine of first sale applies to copies of a copyrighted work legally produced abroad, thereby permitting the importation and resale of many product categories.

Parallel imports are regulated in different ways by different legal systems; There is no consistency in laws dealing with parallel imports between countries. Neither the Berne Convention nor the Paris Convention explicitly prohibits parallel importation. Consumer organizations tend to support parallel imports because they offer consumers a wider choice and lower prices, provided that consumers retain equivalent legal protection for products in the region (for example. B in the form of guarantees with an international effect), and that competition is not compromised. The agreement allows for compulsory licensing under the agreements to strike a balance between promoting access to existing medicines and promoting research and development on new drugs. However, the concept of a compulsory licence is not included in the ON TRIPS agreement. Instead, the term is another use without the permission of the rights holder in the title of section 31. Mandatory licences are only part of it, as other uses include government use for their own purposes.

The practice of parallel imports is often advocated in the field of software, music, print texts and electronic products and manifests itself for several reasons: this tension mainly concerns the rights and obligations of a protected monopoly. Intellectual property rights allow the owner to sell at a higher price than would be paid in a competitive market, but the owner thus forgoes selling to those who would be willing to buy at a price between the monopoly price and the competitive price. The existence of parallel imports on the market prevents the owner from continuing to exploit the monopoly by segmenting the market, i.e. by applying different prices to different consumers.