1. 2. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 30/67 COMMISSION DE("JISION of 23 December 1988 rejecting the complaint lodged by Smith Kline & French Laboratories Limited against Jordan under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2641/84 (Only the English text is authentic) (89/74/EEC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Hawving regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2641/84 of 17 September 1984 on the strengthening of the common commercial policy with regard in particular to protection against illicit commercial practices (*), and m particular Articles 3 and 5 thereof, Following consultations in the Advisory Committee set up by the said Regulation, Whereas : A. Procedure (a) Complaint (1)  In June of this year the Commission received a complaint to the effect that Jordan, by promul-. gating Law 8 of 1986 amending Law 22 of 1953 on patents, had infringed Articles 10 bis and 10 ter of the Paris Convention for the protection of industrial property by depriving Smith Kline & French Laboratories Limited of the protection previously afforded it by the patent for ‘new polymorph’, which it held in Jordan. The company alleged that in so doing Jordan was guilty of an illicit commercial practice and had caused the Community industry concerned ‘serious injury. (b) Complainant industry concerned and  Community (2 The complaint was lodged by Smith Kline & French Laboratories Limited, hereinafter referred to as Smith Kline, a company constituted under English Law which produces Tagamet and exports it to Jordan. The product’s active substance is cimetidine, developed from the new polymorph which Smith Kline invented. (c) Products involved (3) The products involved are the products marketed under- the name Tagamet and all products () OJ No L 252, 20. 9. 1984, p. 1. * ¢ © containing cimetidine manufactured from the new polymorph, an invention patented in Jordan by Smith Kline under the number 882. The products fall within CN code 3004 90 99. B. Plaintiff’s allegations (a) Allegation of illicit ocmmercial practices Smith Kline asserts that by promulgating Law 8 of 1986 amending Article 4 of Law 22 of 1953 on patents, Jordan infringed Article 10 b:s (1) and Article 10 fer of the Paris Convention for the protection of industrial property (hereinafter referred to as the Paris Convention) and is guilty of illicit commercial practices within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 2641/84. The company claims that the adoption of Law 8 was on ‘act of unfair competition’ on the part of Jordan under Article 10 bis (1), in that, by removing some of the protection which the 1953 Law afforded patented inventions, under the headmg of pharmaceutical products, it allowed competing firms to benefit from other firms’ investment, without any guid pro quo whatsoever, and this ran counter to fair industrial and commercial practice. Smith Kline added that this amendment had the effect of legitimizing acts of unfair competition which it alleged had been perpetrated by competitors before the Law was. amended. The company asserts that, since adopting Law 8 of 1986, _]ordan is also infringing Article 10 ter because it is no longer allowing the appopnate legal remedies’ to be taken effectlvely to repress unfair competition. (b) Allegation of snjury According to Smith Kline, the unfair commercial practice described above caused the Community industry concerned serious injury since the company was thereby prevented from marketing its products in Jordan and on other Arab markets. It claims that is has suffered injury amounting to at least £ 480 000 a year as a result of loss of potential sales.