International Trademark Protection

Description

William Fisher
Harvard University
June 25, 2004

Many of the slides in this presentation were prepared by the Technical Cooperation Division of the Office of Harmonization in the Internal Market, Alicante, Spain, October 29, 1998

Reviews
Shared by: Ella Chou
Categories
Tags
Stats
views:
300
rating:
not rated
reviews:
0
posted:
1/19/2008
language:
English
pages:
0
International Trademark Protection William Fisher June 25, 2004 Many of the slides in this presentation were prepared by the Technical Cooperation Division of the Office of Harmonization in the Internal Market, Alicante, Spain, October 29, 1998 Internationalization of Trademark Protection: Four Axes (1) Harmonization of the laws of separate jurisdictions (2) Facilitation of Filings and Management in other countries (3) Expanding coverage of regional trademarks (4) Expansion of trademark entitlements Terminus: single, uniform, world-wide, highly protective trademark system Vehicles of International Trademark Protection • Paris Convention (1883, 1900, 1911, 1925, 1934, 1958, 1967) • Madrid Agreement (1890, 1967) • Madrid Protocol (1989) • Trademark Law Treaty (1996) • TRIPS • Regional Trademark Systems – Community Trademarks (European Union) – MERCOSUR (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay) – Andean Pact (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela) – APEC (Asia-Pacific) – ARPIO & OAPI (Africa) Vehicles of International Trademark Protection • Paris Convention (1883, 1900, 1911, 1925, 1934, 1958, 1967) • Madrid Agreement (1890, 1967) • Madrid Protocol (1989) • Trademark Law Treaty (1996) • TRIPS • Regional Trademark Systems – Community Trademarks (European Union) – MERCOSUR (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay) – Andean Pact (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela) – APEC (Asia-Pacific) – ARPIO & OAPI (Africa) Paris Convention • No discrimination against nationals of other countries -- 2 • First filing date in a member country gives applicant priority in all other countries, provided filings are made within 6 months -- 4 • Marks considered “well-known” in any member country protected against use on similar goods in that country -- 6bis • Protection of foreign nationals against “unfair competition” -- 10bis Vehicles of International Trademark Protection • Paris Convention (1883, 1900, 1911, 1925, 1934, 1958, 1967) • Madrid Agreement (1890, 1967) • Madrid Protocol (1989) • Trademark Law Treaty (1996) • TRIPS • Regional Trademark Systems – Community Trademarks (European Union) – MERCOSUR (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay) – Andean Pact (Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela) – APEC (Asia-Pacific) – ARPIO & OAPI (Africa) Vehicles of International Trademark Protection • Paris Convention (1883, 1900, 1911, 1925, 1934, 1958, 1967) • Madrid Agreement (1890, 1967) • Madrid Protocol (1989) • Trademark Law Treaty (1996) • TRIPS • Regional Trademark Systems – Community Trademarks (European Union) – MERCOSUR (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay) – Andean Pact (Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela) – APEC (Asia-Pacific) – ARPIO & OAPI (Africa) Madrid Agreement • 30 Countries (not USA) • Owner of a “basic registration” may file international TM application in home office – if int’l application is filed within 6 months of basic registration, get date of priority • Application forwarded to WIPO, which: – issues international registration – publishes in Les Marques Internationales – forwards application to designated member countries • National offices examine application for conformity with national laws – if no action within 1 year, deemed registered • “Central Attack” • French Madrid Protocol • 70 countries (USA joined on 11/2/2003) • After filing domestic application, applicant may file international TM application in home office – if int’l application is filed within 6 months of basic application, get date of priority • Application forwarded to WIPO, which: – issues international registration – publishes in Les Marques Internationales – forwards application to designated member countries • National offices examine application for conformity with national laws – if no action within 1 year, deemed registered • No “Central Attack” • French or English http://www.wipo.org/madrid/en/legal_texts/madrid_protocol.htm Vehicles of International Trademark Protection • Paris Convention (1883, 1900, 1911, 1925, 1934, 1958, 1967) • Madrid Agreement (1890, 1967) • Madrid Protocol (1989) • Trademark Law Treaty (1996) • TRIPS • Regional Trademark Systems – Community Trademarks (European Union) – MERCOSUR (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay) – Andean Pact (Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela) – APEC (Asia-Pacific) – ARPIO & OAPI (Africa) Vehicles of International Trademark Protection • Paris Convention (1883, 1900, 1911, 1925, 1934, 1958, 1967) • Madrid Agreement (1890, 1967) • Madrid Protocol (1989) • Trademark Law Treaty (1996) • TRIPS • Regional Trademark Systems – Community Trademarks (European Union) – MERCOSUR (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay) – Andean Pact (Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela) – APEC (Asia-Pacific) – ARPIO & OAPI (Africa) Trademark Law Treaty • Procedural simplification and harmonization • 27 countries, including US (as of 2/26/2002) • Standard forms for applications, powers of attorney, etc. • Countries may require only: – name and address, – information concerning the mark – goods and services the mark pertains to, – the mark's classification, – declaration of the intention to use the mark. • 10-year initial term and renewal terms http://www.wipo.int/treaties/ip/tlt/index.html Vehicles of International Trademark Protection • Paris Convention (1883, 1900, 1911, 1925, 1934, 1958, 1967) • Madrid Agreement (1890, 1967) • Madrid Protocol (1989) • Trademark Law Treaty (1996) • TRIPS • Regional Trademark Systems – Community Trademarks (European Union) – MERCOSUR (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay) – Andean Pact (Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela) – APEC (Asia-Pacific) – ARPIO & OAPI (Africa) Vehicles of International Trademark Protection • Paris Convention (1883, 1900, 1911, 1925, 1934, 1958, 1967) • Madrid Agreement (1890, 1967) • Madrid Protocol (1989) • Trademark Law Treaty (1996) • TRIPS (1994) • Regional Trademark Systems – Community Trademarks (European Union) – MERCOSUR (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay) – Andean Pact (Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela) – APEC (Asia-Pacific) – ARPIO & OAPI (Africa) TRIPS Harmonization • National Treatment and MFN • Service marks must be protected -- 15 • Geographical indications must be protected (especially for wine and spirits) -- 22 & 23 • Mandatory Procedures for Publication, Opposition, and Cancellation -- 15 • Expansive protection for well-known marks -- 16 • 7-year minimum term -- 18 • Cancellation for non-use only after 3 years; longer if owner has legitimate excuse -- 19. • No compulsory licensing -- 21 • No “special requirements” encumbering use -- 21 • Preliminary relief must be available • Pre-1959: Arechabalas family owns Cuban TM in Havana Club • 1959: Cuban government confiscates assets of Arechabalas family • Arechabalas let Cuban TM registration lapse • Cuban company registers Havana Club, then enters into joint venture with Pernod Ricard (French); HCH sells rum under that label in 80 countries • 1997: Bacardi (Bermuda company) buys rights to “Havana Club” from Arechabalas family • HCH seeks US registration for “Havana Club” • 1998, Congress adopts “Section 211,” forbidding U.S. courts to recognize or enforce TM rights used in connection with a confiscated business, unless the confiscado consents; limited to Cuban confiscados; • HCH unable to press its claims in U.S courts • Castro threatens to begin local, unauthorized production of Coca-Cola • EU initiates WTO dispute settlement Bacardi Case • Pre-1959: Arechabalas family owns Cuban TM in Havana Club • 1959: Cuban government confiscates assets of Arechabalas family • Arechabalas let Cuban TM registration lapse • Cuban company registers Havana Club, then enters into joint venture with Pernod Ricard (French); HCH sells rum under that label in 80 countries • 1997: Bacardi (Bermuda company) buys rights to “Havana Club” from Arechabalas family • HCH seeks US registration for “Havana Club” • 1998, Congress adopts “Section 211,” forbidding U.S. courts to recognize or enforce TM rights used in connection with a confiscated business, unless the confiscado consents; limited to Cuban confiscados; • HCH unable to press its claims in U.S courts • Castro threatens to begin local, unauthorized production of Coca-Cola • EU initiates WTO dispute settlement Bacardi Case Bacardi Case • Final Ruling of WTO appellate body (January 2002): – Trade names are covered by TRIPS – Each country had substantial latitude in regulating conditions for registration of marks • Thus US could refuse to register confiscated marks – But non-discrimination principles (National Treatment and MFN) forbid special treatment for nationals of a particular foreign country Vehicles of International Trademark Protection • Paris Convention (1883, 1900, 1911, 1925, 1934, 1958, 1967) • Madrid Agreement (1890, 1967) • Madrid Protocol (1989) • Trademark Law Treaty (1996) • TRIPS • Regional Trademark Systems – Community Trademarks (European Union) – MERCOSUR (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay) – Andean Pact (Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela) – APEC (Asia-Pacific) – ARPIO & OAPI (Africa) Vehicles of International Trademark Protection • Paris Convention (1883, 1900, 1911, 1925, 1934, 1958, 1967) • Madrid Agreement (1890, 1967) • Madrid Protocol (1989) • Trademark Law Treaty (1996) • TRIPS • Regional Trademark Systems – Community Trademarks (European Union) – MERCOSUR (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay) – Andean Pact (Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela) – APEC (Asia-Pacific) – ARPIO & OAPI (Africa) Community Trademark • • • • Coexists with national TM systems Substantive Harmonization Open System (contrast Madrid Protocol) Administrative hierarchy: – OHIM – OHIM Boards of Appeals – European Court of Justice • “Absolute” Grounds for Nonregistration – indistinctive, descriptive, functional, deceptive, flags, etc. • Designated “Community TM Courts” in each country • Cancellation for nonuse in Europe for 5 years Community Trademark • • • • Coexists with national TM systems Substantive Harmonization Open System (contrast Madrid Protocol) Administrative hierarchy: – OHIM – OHIM Boards of Appeals – European Court of Justice • “Absolute” Grounds for Nonregistration – indistinctive, descriptive, functional, deceptive, flags, etc. • Designated “Community TM Courts” in each country • Cancellation for nonuse in Europe for 5 years Directive 89/104: Substantive Harmonization 1) definition of what can be registered as a trademark; 2) rights conferred by a trademark; 3) conditions on use of a trademark, especially, cancellation for lack of use; 4) exhaustion of the rights; 5) grounds for refusal, invalidation, or revocation of a trademark National Trademark Systems SE FI IE DK GB BX FR AT IT DE PT ES GR EM ® TM Three Alternative Routes Three Alternative Routes national offices CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY OFFICES: NATIONAL TRADE MARKS Three Alternative Routes national offices CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY OFFICES: NATIONAL TRADE MARKS WIPO: REGISTRATION OF A INTERNATIONAL TRADE MARKS Three Alternative Routes national offices CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY OFFICES: NATIONAL TRADE MARKS WIPO: REGISTRATION OF A INTERNATIONAL TRADE MARKS OHIM: REGISTRATION OF A COMMUNITY TRADE MARKS OHIM ALICANTE SENIORITY NATIONAL TRADE MARKS ES: National trade mark as from 12.6.1980 IT: National trade mark as from 15.11.1981 DE: National trade mark as from 20.4.1985 GR: National trade mark as from 02.7.1996 SENIORITY NATIONAL TRADE MARKS ES: National trade mark as from 12.6.1980 IT: National trade mark as from 15.11.1981 DE: National trade mark as from 20.4.1985 GR: National trade mark as from 02.7.1996 COMMUNITY TRADE MARK COMMUNITY TRADE MARK as from 10.7.1997 SENIORITY NATIONAL TRADE MARKS ES: National trade mark as from 12.6.1980 IT: National trade mark as from 15.11.1981 DE: National trade mark as from 20.4.1985 GR: National trade mark as from 02.7.1996 COMMUNITY TRADE MARK COMMUNITY TRADE MARK as from 10.7.1997 FILING OF A COMMUNITY TRADE MARK ETMAF APPLICATION FOR A COMMUNITY TRADE MARK ON PAPER by mail or courier service by fax personal delivery OHIM NATIONAL OFFICES LANGUAGES the OHIM • • • • • • • • • • • the European Union Danish Dutch English Finnish French German Greek Italian Portuguese Spanish Swedish • English • French • German • Italian • Spanish EXAMINATION APPLICATION EUROMARC Conditions of filing Conditions relating to the entitlement of the proprietor Examination as to formalities National Offices ES, AT, BX, DK, FI, GB, GR, IE, PT, SE FORMAL EXAMINATION SEARCH REPORTS ABSOLUTE GROUNDS PUBLICATION OF APPLICATION Examination as to absolute grounds of refusal OPPOSITION PROCEEDINGS PUBLICATION NO OPPOSITION OPPOSITION DECISION ON OPPOSITION REFUSAL in whole or in part REGISTRATION • Earlier TM applications or registrations in Member States • Earlier international registrations with effect in at least one of the countries of the EU • Or, earlier CTMs or CTMAs TYPES OF COMMUNITY TRADE MARKS 1 Trade marks for goods or services 2 Collective trade marks RIGHTS CONFERRED BY A COMMUNITY TRADE MARK • of exclusive use of the trade mark; • to prevent the reproduction or imitation of a trade mark; • to transfer a trade mark or to grant licenses for some or all of the goods or services to which the trade mark is registered, in part or the whole of the Community; • to oppose the registration of similar Community or national trade marks which could cause confusion to the consumer. Vehicles of International Trademark Protection • Paris Convention (1883, 1900, 1911, 1925, 1934, 1958, 1967) • Madrid Agreement (1890, 1967) • Madrid Protocol (1989) • Trademark Law Treaty (1996) • TRIPS • Regional Trademark Systems – Community Trademarks (European Union) – MERCOSUR (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay) – Andean Pact (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela) – APEC (Asia-Pacific) – ARPIO & OAPI (Africa) OFFICE FOR HARMONIZATION IN THE INTERNAL MARKET STATISTICS Technical Cooperation Division COMMUNITY TRADE MARK APPLICATIONS BREAKDOWN BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN – 1997 (MORE THAN 1,000 APPLICATIONS) total number of applications: 93,036 Technical Cooperation Division US DE GB IT ES FR JP NL SE CH DK AT BE OTHER 26.277 15.043 12.506 6.018 5.657 5.016 2.717 2.625 2.133 1.816 1.566 1.465 1.462 8.735 28,24% 16,17% 13,44% 6,47% 6,08% 5,39% 2,92% 2,82% 2,29% 1,95% 1,68% 1,57% 1,57% 9,39% 9,39% 1,57% 1,57% 1,68% 1,95% 2,29% 2,82% 2,92% 28,24% 5,39% 6,08% 6,47% 13,44% 16,17% Total Registrations, by Country, 1997-2001 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 BEDK 0 ESFR GR IE IT NL ATPT FI SE LU JPCH DE GB US EU COMMUNITY TRADE MARK APPLICATIONS BREAKDOWN BY FIRST LANGUAGE OF APPLICATION English German 18.151 19,51% Dutch 10.072 10,83% 6,33% French 6.347 6,82% Spanish 6.582 7,07% Italian 5.996 6,44% Other 5.890 6,33% Technical Cooperation Division 39.998 42,99% 6,44% 7,07% 42,99% 6,82% 10,83% 19,51% COMMUNITY TRADE MARK APPLICATIONS BREAKDOWN BY SECOND LANGUAGE OF APPLICATION English French Spanish German Italian not specified Technical Cooperation Division 48.570 52,21% 27.161 29,19% 8.226 8,84% 5.099 5,48% 0,06% 3.925 4,22% 55 0,06% 5,48% 8,84% 4,22% 52,21% 29,19% APPLICATION BY NUMBER OF CLASSES Technical Cooperation Division N° of classes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 N° of applications 39.555 15.236 25.071 5.160 2.788 1.633 949 633 % 42,52% 16,38% 26,95% 5,55% 3,00% 1,76% 1,02% 0,68% 40000 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 APPLICATIONS BY NATURE Nature Word Mark Figurative 3D Other Total Number 59.625 31.656 879 876 93.036 % 64,09% 34,03% 0,94% 0,94% 100,00% Technical Cooperation Division 60.000 50.000 40.000 30.000 20.000 10.000 59.625 31.656 879 0 Word Mark Figurative 3D 876 Other APPLICATIONS BY DEPOSIT CLASSES Class number 9 42 16 25 41 35 5 3 7 30 28 N° of applications 26.551 17.568 16.274 13.088 9.213 8.857 7.972 7.264 6.701 6.607 6.274 % 11,66% 7,72% 7,15% 5,75% 4,05% 3,89% 3,50% 3,19% 2,94% 2,90% 2,76% Technical Cooperation Division 25.000 20.000 15.000 10.000 5.000 0 9 42 16 25 41 35 5 3 7 30 28 Class 9 : Scientific, nautical, surveying, electric, photographic, cinematographic, optical, weighing, measuring, signalling, checking , life-saving and teaching apparatus and instruments; calculating machines; cash registers, data processing equipment and computers; .... Class 42 : Providing of food and drink; temporary accommodation; medical, hygienic and beauty care; veterinary and agricultural services; ... Class 16 : Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, printed matter; bookbinding material; photographs; artists materials; ... FEES (1998) Basic fee for application (including 3 classes) Fee for each class exceeding 3 Opposition fee Fee for alteration INDIVIDUAL MARK ECU US $ 975 200 350 200 1,162 238 417 238 Basic fee for registration (including 3 classes) Fee for each class exceeding 3 Renewal fee Fee for renewal for each class of g/s exceeding 3 classes Fee for invalidity Appeal fee 1,100 200 2,500 500 700 800 1,311 238 2,980 596 834 953 1 ECU=1.19192 US $ (26 October 1998) g/s = goods and services INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC • Community Trade Mark Bulletin - on paper - on CD-ROM • Official Journal of the Office • Annual Activity Report • Internet: http://oami.eu.int Vehicles of International Trademark Protection • Paris Convention (1883, 1900, 1911, 1925, 1934, 1958, 1967) • Madrid Agreement (1890, 1967) • Madrid Protocol (1989) • Trademark Law Treaty (1996) • TRIPS • Regional Trademark Systems – Community Trademarks (European Union) – MERCOSUR (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay) – Andean Pact (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela) – APEC (Asia-Pacific) – ARPIO & OAPI (Africa) Vehicles of International Trademark Protection • Paris Convention (1883, 1900, 1911, 1925, 1934, 1958, 1967) • Madrid Agreement (1890, 1967) • Madrid Protocol (1989) • Trademark Law Treaty (1996) • TRIPS • Regional Trademark Systems – Community Trademarks (European Union) – MERCOSUR (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay) – Andean Pact (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela) – APEC (Asia-Pacific) – ARPIO & OAPI (Africa) MERCOSUR • Mercado Comun del Sur • Goals: – Free movement within the common market of goods, services, capital, and labor – common trade policy vis-à-vis other countries – coordination of macroeconomic policies – harmonization of domestic legislation to increase regional integration • Currently substantial variations among trademark protection provided by the four member countries MERCOSUR • Protocol for the Harmonization of Regulation of Intellectual Property – adopted 1995 • Member states will abide by TRIPS • National Treatment • Expansive Definition of trademarks, service marks, collective marks • Uniform list of unprotectable marks • Limited prior user rights • Uniform Protection of “Well-known” marks • 10-year term, renewable • Parallel Imports permitted Vehicles of International Trademark Protection • Paris Convention (1883, 1900, 1911, 1925, 1934, 1958, 1967) • Madrid Agreement (1890, 1967) • Madrid Protocol (1989) • Trademark Law Treaty (1996) • TRIPS • Regional Trademark Systems – Community Trademarks (European Union) – MERCOSUR (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay) – Andean Pact (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela) – APEC (Asia-Pacific) – ARPIO & OAPI (Africa) Andean Pact • Decision 486 (2000): Common Intellectual Property Regime (in compliance with TRIPS) • National Treatment and MFN Principles • Separate National Trademark Registries • 6-month priority window for registration in other countries • Andean Opposition • Coexistence of identical or similar marks for competitive goods permitted, provided – the owners reach a “coexistence agreement” – that avoids consumer confusion – registered with national office Vehicles of International Trademark Protection • Paris Convention (1883, 1900, 1911, 1925, 1934, 1958, 1967) • Madrid Agreement (1890, 1967) • Madrid Protocol (1989) • Trademark Law Treaty (1996) • TRIPS • Regional Trademark Systems – Community Trademarks (European Union) – MERCOSUR (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay) – Andean Pact (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela) – APEC (Asia-Pacific) – ARPIO & OAPI (Africa) Vehicles of International Trademark Protection • Paris Convention (1883, 1900, 1911, 1925, 1934, 1958, 1967) • Madrid Agreement (1890, 1967) • Madrid Protocol (1989) • Trademark Law Treaty (1996) • TRIPS • Regional Trademark Systems – Community Trademarks (European Union) – MERCOSUR (Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay) – Andean Pact (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela) Central American – APEC (Asia-Pacific) Trademark? – ARPIO & OAPI (Africa) Current Situation in Central America Separate applications; local counsel; renewals; potential litigation; etc. Proposal: Regional Trademark System single application; single local counsel; single renewal system; infringement judgment binding throughout the region Central-American Trademark would be easier to establish than the European Community Mark • No language barriers • We could build upon (and improve upon) the European experience • The managers of the OHIM have offered to help design and implement a CentralAmerican system Advantages of the Regional System • From the standpoint of firms: – much simpler and less expensive – easier to police TM violations Advantages of the Regional System • From the standpoint of firms: – much simpler and less expensive – easier to police TM violations • From the standpoint of the region Advantages of the Regional System • From the standpoint of firms: – much simpler and less expensive – easier to police TM violations • From the standpoint of the region – help attract multinational firms Advantages of the Regional System • From the standpoint of firms: – much simpler and less expensive – easier to police TM violations • From the standpoint of the region – help attract multinational firms – total costs of the registries would diminish sharply Advantages of the Regional System • From the standpoint of firms: – much simpler and less expensive – easier to police TM violations • From the standpoint of the region – help attract multinational firms – total costs of the registries would diminish sharply – the regional registry would be a profit center Advantages of the Regional System • From the standpoint of firms: – much simpler and less expensive – easier to police TM violations • From the standpoint of the region – help attract multinational firms – total costs of the registries would diminish sharply – the regional registry would be a profit center – provide a pilot project to test the prospects for general economic integration of Central America

Shared by: Ella Chou
Other docs by Ella Chou
Related docs
trademark
Views: 113  |  Downloads: 3
Trademark Registration
Views: 556  |  Downloads: 25
international trademark association
Views: 16  |  Downloads: 0
trademark-guide
Views: 72  |  Downloads: 13
trademark price
Views: 186  |  Downloads: 2
What is a Trademark
Views: 66  |  Downloads: 4
apply trademark
Views: 149  |  Downloads: 3
trademark search
Views: 55  |  Downloads: 4
registering trademark
Views: 195  |  Downloads: 7
how to trademark
Views: 169  |  Downloads: 4
Federal Trademark
Views: 4  |  Downloads: 0
Trademark Law
Views: 197  |  Downloads: 10
online trademark
Views: 106  |  Downloads: 1