DOCSLIB.ORG

Annual Review of EU Trademark

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Annual Review of EU Trademark Annual Review of EU Trademark Law 2016 in Review Guy Heath—CMS London, United Kingdom with Georg Jahn—Noerr LLP Munich, Germany Jordi Güell—Curell Suñol Barcelona, Spain Anne Marie Verschuur—NautaDutilh Amsterdam, The Netherlands Pier Luigi Roncaglia—Studio Legale SIB Florence, Italy Anne-Laure Villedieu—CMS Bureau Francis Lefebre Paris, France Ivo Rungg—Binder Grösswang Vienna, Austria Nina Ringen—Lundgrens Copenhagen, Denmark Johan Norderyd—Lindahl Stockholm, Sweden Tanguy de Haan—NautaDutilh Brussels, Belgium Alistair Payne—Acuatus Solicitors Dublin, Ireland Vincent Wellens—NautaDutilh Luxembourg March–April, 2017 Vol. 107 No. 2 INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION Powerful Network Powerful Brands 655 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017-5646 Telephone: +1 (212) 642-1733 email: [email protected] Facsimile: +1 (212) 768-7796 OFFICERS OF THE ASSOCIATION JOSEPH FERRETTI ................................................................................................................... President TISH L. BERARD ..............................................................................................................President Elect DAVID LOSSIGNOL ........................................................................................................... Vice President AYALA DEUTSCH ............................................................................................................. Vice President TIKI DARE ............................................................................................................................... Treasurer ZEEGER VINK .......................................................................................................................... Secretary MAURY M. TEPPER, III ............................................................................................................... Counsel ETIENNE SANZ DE ACEDO ................................................................................... Chief Executive Officer The Trademark Reporter Committee EDITORIAL BOARD EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, CHAIR STAFF EDITOR-IN-CHIEF KATHLEEN E. MCCARTHY WILLARD KNOX Senior Editors NEIL WILKOF JESSICA ELLIOTT CARDON RUTH CORBIN GLENN MITCHELL ELISABETH KASZNAR FEKETE RAFFI V. ZEROUNIAN FABRIZIO MIAZZETTO PAMELA CHESTEK CHIKAKO MORI Staff Editor Staff Editor BEVERLY HARRIS JOEL L. BROMBERG Editors TSAN ABRAHAMSON ANN LAMPORT HAMMITTE SAURABH NANDREKAR MARIA BARATTA GUY HEATH AMANDA NYE MARTIN J. BERAN ANNE HIARING HOCKING JENIFER DEWOLF PAINE DANIEL R. BERESKIN JANET L. HOFFMAN JEREMY B. PENNANT STEFANIA BERGIA GANG HU NEAL PLATT LANNING BRYER DOMINIC HUI MICHIEL RIJSDIJK SHELDON BURSHTEIN AHMAD HUSSEIN RACHEL RUDENSKY IRENE CALBOLI BRUCE ISAACSON JEREMY SCHACHTER ROBERT CAMERON AGLIKA IVANOVA MATTHEW R. SCHANTZ JANE F. COLLEN E. DEBORAH JAY MARTIN SCHWIMMER THEODORE H. DAVIS JR. FENGTAO JIANG JENNIFER SICKLER ANNE DESMOUSSEAUX HE JING AARON SILVERSTEIN MEGHAN DILLON MARIA JOSE JIRON BENDANA ALEX SIMONSON THOMAS F. DUNN SIEGRUN D. KANE GIULIO ENRICO SIRONI SCOT DUVALL SUSAN J. KERI WENDI E. SLOANE CLAUS M. ECKHARTT MIKE KEYES JERRE B. SWANN, JR. SHEJA EHTESHAM ROLAND KUNZE SCOTT THOMPSON KAREN L. ELBURG JOI MICHELLE LAKES CHINASA UWANNA MATTHEW EZELL SCOTT LEBSON ANJALI VALSANGKAR NEMESIO FERNANDEZ-PACHECO NELS LIPPERT EDWARD E. VASSALLO SALVADOR FERRANDIS MARCUS LUEPKE MARTIN VIEFHUES ALFRED FRAWLEY J. THOMAS MCCARTHY CHARLES WEBSTER ALEX GARENS NANCY A. MILLER JORDAN WEINSTEIN ALEXANDRA GEORGE GEORGE W. MOXON JOHN L. WELCH DANIEL GLAZER JOHN M. MURPHY JOSEPH WELCH ANDREW J. GRAY IV PAUL MUSSELL BRYAN K. WHEELOCK LESLEY MCCALL GROSSBERG SADAF NAKHAEI JOSEPH YANG Advisory Board MILES J. ALEXANDER ROBERT M. KUNSTADT ROBERT L. RASKOPF WILLIAM M. BORCHARD THEODORE C. MAX PASQUALE A. RAZZANO CLIFFORD W. BROWNING JONATHAN MOSKIN SUSAN REISS LANNING G. BRYER VINCENT N. PALLADINO PIER LUIGI RONCAGLIA SANDRA EDELMAN JOHN B. PEGRAM HOWARD J. SHIRE ANTHONY L. FLETCHER ALLAN S. PILSON JERRE B. SWANN, SR. ARTHUR J. GREENBAUM STEVEN M. WEINBERG The views expressed in The Trademark Reporter are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect those of INTA. The Trademark Reporter (ISSN 0041-056X) is published electronically six times a year by the International Trademark Association, 655 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017-5646 USA. INTA, the INTA logo, INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION, POWERFUL NETWORK POWERFUL BRANDS, THE TRADEMARK REPORTER, and inta.org are trademarks, service marks, and/or registered trademarks of the International Trademark Association in the United States and certain other jurisdictions. The Trademark Reporter® Copyright 2017, by the International Trademark Association All Rights Reserved Vol. 107 March–April, 2017 No. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ANNUAL REVIEW OF EU TRADEMARK LAW 2016 in Review I. Introduction ......................................................................... 466 A. About this Review .......................................................... 466 B. Legislative Change and Terminology ............................ 466 C. Organization of Material in this Review ....................... 467 II. “Signs” Capable of Registration ........................................... 468 A. Introductory Comments ................................................. 468 B. Legal Texts (Note: the quoted texts are pre-2016: See Introduction) .................................................................. 468 C. Cases .............................................................................. 469 1. United Kingdom—English High Court— What is the effect of a mismatch between the verbal and the visual identification of a trademark? ......... 469 2. United Kingdom—English High Court—Can a registration be considered to cover a series of marks, even when the mark was not registered as such at the outset? ............................................... 473 3. United Kingdom—English Court of Appeal— Validity—Is the registration of a “series” mark under UK law compatible with EU law? ................. 477 This issue of The Trademark Reporter (TMR) should be cited as 107 TMR ___ (2017). ii Vol. 107 TMR III. Absolute Grounds for Refusal of Registration, and for Cancellation, and Post-Registration Genericness ............... 480 A. Introductory Comments ................................................. 480 B. Legal Texts (Note: the quoted texts are pre-2016. See Introduction) .................................................................. 481 C. Cases .............................................................................. 483 1. EU—CJEU—Shape marks—May the EUIPO take into account information about a product shape mark that is not manifest from the graphic representative of the mark and any description of the mark? ........................................... 483 2. EU—General Court—When is a mark to be treated as conveying a mere promotional message? ................................................................... 485 3. EU—EU General Court—Does the law on EUTMs recognize that merely suggestive or allusive terms should not be condemned as descriptive? ............................................................... 487 4. EU—EU General Court—How far can descriptiveness objections apply across a range of goods and services associated with the operation of an online platform? .............................. 489 5. EU—EU General Court—Can potential descriptiveness issues relating to the laudatory meaning of a word be swamped by consideration of other descriptive meanings that the word might or might not be given in the context? ............ 492 6. EU—EU General Court—Can descriptiveness objections based on the meaning of a mark in a certain European language be overcome by evidence that, in the relevant culture of the consumers who speak that language, the term of which the mark is composed would not be used? .... 494 7. EU—EU General Court—What gives a simple graphic form distinctive trademark character in the eyes of the relevant public? ................................ 497 Vol. 107 TMR iii 8. EU—EU General Court—In what circumstances may a figurative mark formed of a geometric pattern be taken as liable to form a surface decoration or an aspect of a product or packaging shape?...................................................... 498 9. EU—General Court—Can a shape mark be held to have acquired a distinctive character where the shape in question is absorbed within another shape that has been extensively marketed, and is not distinguished from it? ............ 501 10. EU—EU General Court—Can an abstract design confer inherent distinctiveness on a color mark, and can a survey designed to show acquired distinctiveness also help establish the mark’s inherent distinctiveness? ............................. 503 11. EU—General Court—Sound marks—When should a sound mark be regarded as excessively simple, notwithstanding the familiarity of consumers with the use of sound marks in the economic sector concerned? ...................................... 505 12. EU—EU General Court—Can a claim to acquired distinctiveness be established by use of an abbreviation of the trademark concerned? ......... 508 13. EU—EU General Court—For an EUTM to have acquired distinctive character through use, must the mark have been used in the whole of the European Union? ............................................... 510 14. United Kingdom—English High Court—Shape marks—Article 3(3)—For a shape mark to have acquired distinctive character, must the trademark applicant be able to demonstrate that the relevant public rely on the shape
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Trademark Dilution in the European Union
    Chapter 10 Trademark Dilution in the European Union Professor Charles Gielen* I. INTRODUCTION § 10:1 Introduction and legal context § 10:2 Protection of registered and unregistered rights against detriment and free-riding § 10:3 Possibility of non-confusion infringement under the “double identity” rule II. REPUTATION § 10:4 The concept of reputation § 10:5 The place where the mark enjoys a reputation § 10:6 —National or regional marks § 10:7 —EU Trade Marks § 10:8 Evidence of reputation III. USE § 10:9 Use of an identical or similar sign § 10:10 Use in relation to goods or services § 10:11 Protection for use with non-similar or similar goods or services § 10:12 Use in the course of trade IV. ASSOCIATION § 10:13 Requirement for detriment or free-riding: link or association § 10:14 Factors to establish a link V. NON-CONFUSION INFRINGEMENT § 10:15 Non-confusion infringement generally *Professor Charles Gielen is of counsel of NautaDutilh NV in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, emeritus professor of IP law at the University of Groningen, the Netherlands, and extraordinary professor of IP Law at the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa. 221 INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK DILUTION § 10:16 Actual injury or likelihood of injury VI. DETRIMENT TO DISTINCTIVENESS § 10:17 Detriment to distinctiveness generally § 10:18 Factors to establish detriment § 10:19 Evidence of an effect on economic behavior or a non- hypothetical risk § 10:20 Case law on detriment to distinctiveness VII. DETRIMENT TO REPUTATION § 10:21 Detriment to reputation generally § 10:22 Case law on detriment to reputation VIII. DEFENSES AND REMEDIES § 10:23 Without due cause § 10:24 Remedies in detriment and free-riding cases KeyCiteL: Cases and other legal materials listed in KeyCite Scope can be researched through the KeyCite service on WestlawL.UseKeyCitetocheck citations for form, parallel references, prior and later history, and comprehen- sive citator information, including citations to other decisions and secondary materials.
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Importation (Parallel Trade) in Pharmaceuticals
    IPI CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY FREEDOM Re-importation (Parallel Trade) in Pharmaceuticals By Jacob Arfwedson POLICY REPORT 182 JULY 2004 E S Supporters of parallel trade in pharmaceuticals argue that it lower prices, which is popular with consumers and cash-strapped governments. But in fact parallel trade reduces safety, since it represents an end-run around domestic inspection procedures. More importantly, re-importa- tion undermines intellectual property protection and hence incentives to invest in research and development of IP-based products; which will have ominous implications for consumers in the long-run. Re-importation (or parallel trade as it is known in Europe) occurs when products protected by patent, trademark or copyright are first placed into circulation on one market, then (re-) imported into a second market without the authorization of the original owner of the intellectual property rights (IPRs). Myriad products are re-imported, including automobiles, clothing, perfume and other consumer goods. This paper focuses on re-importation of pharmaceuticals, with a special focus on Europe. How- ever, the paper could not be timelier in the United States, where the House of Representatives voted in late July 2003 on re-importing Canadian prescription drugs into the US. This paper as- sesses whether parallel trade is generally valid, concluding that the net economic effects cannot be established empirically but that there may be significant long run harms to innovation if parallel trade grows indefinitely. IPRs are limited rights conferred by governments over certain products of the intellect (e.g. patents which protect inventions, copyrights which protect expressions of ideas and trademarks which protect brands).
    [Show full text]
  • State of Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement in Armenia
    State of intellectual property protection and enforcement in Armenia 2020 Supported by Implemented by Table of contents Foreword ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... 5 About Editors ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ 7 Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 9 Executive summary ............................................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 1 Contribution of IP system and IP protection to economic growth and development .......................................................................................................................................... 13 1.1. Importance of efficient IP system for economic growth and development ............. 13 1.2. Importance of IP protection for national economies ............................................... 15 Chapter 2. Current state of the IP system in Armenia ..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Trademarks, Metatags, and Initial Interest Confusion: a Look to the Past to Re- Conceptualize the Future
    173 TRADEMARKS, METATAGS, AND INITIAL INTEREST CONFUSION: A LOOK TO THE PAST TO RE- CONCEPTUALIZE THE FUTURE CHAD J. DOELLINGER* INTRODUCTION Web sites, through domain names and metatags, have created a new set of problems for trademark owners. A prominent problem is the use of one’s trademarks in the metatags of a competitor’s web site. The initial interest confusion doctrine has been used to combat this problem.1 Initial interest confusion involves infringement based on confusion that creates initial customer interest, even though no transaction takes place.2 Several important questions have currently received little atten- tion: How should initial interest confusion be defined? How should initial interest confusion be conceptualized? How much confusion is enough to justify a remedy? Who needs to be confused, when, and for how long? How should courts determine when initial interest confusion is sufficient to support a finding of trademark infringement? These issues have been glossed over in the current debate by both courts and scholars alike. While the two seminal opinions involving the initial interest confusion doctrine, Brookfield Commun., Inc. v. West Coast Ent. Corp.3 and * B.A., B.S., University of Iowa (1998); J.D., Yale Law School (2001). Mr. Doellinger is an associate with Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson, 311 S. Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606. The author would like to thank Uli Widmaier for his assistance and insights. The views and opinions in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson. 1 See J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent and Trademark Cases Stephen Mcjohn
    Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Volume 9 Article 1 Issue 4 January Spring 2011 Top Tens in 2010: Patent and Trademark Cases Stephen McJohn Recommended Citation Stephen McJohn, Top Tens in 2010: Patent and Trademark Cases, 9 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 1 (2011). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njtip/vol9/iss4/1 This Perspective is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property by an authorized editor of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. NORTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Top Tens in 2010: Patent and Trademark Cases Stephen McJohn January 2011 VOL. 9, NO. 4 © 2011 by Northwestern University School of Law Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Copyright 2011 by Northwestern University School of Law Volume 9, Number 4 (January 2011) Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Top Tens in 2010: Patent and Trademark Cases By Stephen McJohn* ¶1 The following are notable intellectual property decisions for patent and trademark in 2010 in the United States. Notable copyright and trade secret cases will be examined in a subsequent article. Viewed across doctrinal lines, some interesting threads emerge involving the scope of protection, the amount of secondary liability, and ownership of the intellectual property rights. ¶2 The scope of protection was at issue in both areas. Bilski v. Kappos marked a shift from using technical tests for patent subject matter to relying on the basic exclusions against patents on laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.1 Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v.
    [Show full text]
  • Balancing Trademark Dilution Through Burnishment
    21_2_Article_6_Loughran (Do Not Delete) 6/3/2017 8:38 AM NOTES & COMMENTS TARNISHMENT’S GOODY-TWO-SHOES SHOULDN’T GET ALL THE PROTECTION: BALANCING TRADEMARK DILUTION THROUGH BURNISHMENT by Jordana S. Loughran ∗ Famous marks classically earn twofold confusion and dilution trademark protection. In the past, only famous high-quality, socially acceptable marks—dubbed “wholesome” marks in this Comment—have found protection under dilution theory. Historically, one-sided protection of these wholesome marks isolated an entire classification of trademarks technically qualified for dilution protection, termed “unwholesome marks.” Unwholesome marks are famous marks that either represent salacious goods or services or maintain a constant seamy, gritty, or tawdry appearance. This Comment explores the evolution of dilution theory and its relational effect on unwholesome marks. I hypothesize that courts have construed the dilution doctrine too narrowly and, in doing so, precluded qualified unwholesome marks from bringing viable dilution claims. Part I offers a necessary foundation of trademark protection. Part II explains dilution by tarnishment history and theory before 1995. Part III * Born in Portland, Oregon, Jordana Loughran graduated from Portland State University in 2011 and Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College in 2016, earning a certificate of Intellectual Property. Since graduating, Jordana has shifted focus from intellectual property to real estate law. Many thanks to Professor Tomás Gómez-Arostegui for his guidance and insight throughout this project, my parents, Drs. Vijai A. Shukla and Lee W. Ball, for their unfailing support and meticulous proofreading, and my husband, Phillip J. Loughran, for always encouraging me to explore the sinful side of the law.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT of NEW YORK ------X MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL : INCORPORATED : Plaintiffs, 00 Civ
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------x MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL : INCORPORATED : Plaintiffs, 00 Civ. 6068 (GBD) : -against- MEMORANDUM : OPINION AND ORDER NADER 2000 PRIMARY COMMITTEE, INC., NADER 2000 GENERAL COMMITTEE, INC., : and RALPH NADER, Defendants. : ---------------------------------------------------------------x GEORGE B. DANIELS, District Judge: Plaintiff MasterCard filed an action against defendants Ralph Nader and his political committee, alleging unfair competition, misappropriation, trademark infringement and dilution of MasterCard’s trademarks under the Federal Trademark Act and state and common law. Plaintiff also alleged infringement of plaintiff’s copyright under the Copyright Act of 1976. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED in its entirety. BACKGROUND MasterCard, a Delaware corporation with its principle place of business in New York, is a large financial institution that engages in the interchange of funds by credit and debit payment cards through over 23,000 banks and other foreign and domestic member financial institutions. Since Fall of 1997, MasterCard has commissioned the authorship of a series of advertisements that have come to be known as the “Priceless Advertisements.” These advertisements feature the names and images of several goods and services purchased by individuals which, with voice overs and visual displays, convey to the viewer the price of each
    [Show full text]
  • The First Sale Rule in North American and European Trademark Law
    Texas A&M University School of Law Texas A&M Law Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 5-2012 Market Integration and (the Limits of) the First Sale Rule in North American and European Trademark Law Irene Calboli [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Irene Calboli, Market Integration and (the Limits of) the First Sale Rule in North American and European Trademark Law, 51 Santa Clara L. Rev. 1241 (2012). Available at: https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/362 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Texas A&M Law Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Texas A&M Law Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MARKET INTEGRATION AND (THE LIMITS OF) THE FIRST SALE RULE IN NORTH AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN TRADEMARK LAW Irene Calboli* I. INTRODUCTION The relationship between exclusive trademark rights and the free movement of goods across international borders has historically represented one of the most heated topics of discussion in the international trademark debate.' In a previous work published a few years ago, I analyzed this topic in the context of European trademark law and the case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ).2 In this Article I * Associate Professor of Law and Director, Intellectual Property and Technology Program, Marquette University Law School; Spring 2011 CIPLIT Visiting Professor of Law, DePaul University College of Law. I would like to thank Eric Goldman for the invitation to speak at the "Exhaustion and First Sale in Intellectual Property" conference held at Santa Clara University School of Law on November 5, 2010, and for his insightful suggestions during the research and writing of this Article.
    [Show full text]
  • Basic Facts About Trademarks United States Patent and Trademark O Ce
    Protecting Your Trademark ENHANCING YOUR RIGHTS THROUGH FEDERAL REGISTRATION Basic Facts About Trademarks United States Patent and Trademark O ce Published on February 2020 Our website resources For general information and links to Frequently trademark Asked Questions, processing timelines, the Trademark NEW [2] basics Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) , and FILERS the Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual (ID Manual)[3]. Protecting Your Trademark Trademark Information Network (TMIN) Videos[4] Enhancing Your Rights Through Federal Registration Tools TESS Search pending and registered marks using the Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)[5]. File applications and other documents online using the TEAS Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS)[6]. Check the status of an application and view and TSDR download application and registration records using Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR)[7]. Transfer (assign) ownership of a mark to another ASSIGNMENTS entity or change the owner name and search the Assignments database[8]. Visit the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)[9] TTAB online. United States Patent and Trademark Office An Agency of the United States Department of Commerce UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BASIC FACTS ABOUT TRADEMARKS CONTENTS MEET THE USPTO ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 1 TRADEMARK, COPYRIGHT, OR PATENT ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Review of EU Trademark
    Annual Review of EU Trademark Law 2015 in Review Guy Heath—Nabarro LLP London, United Kingdom with Georg Jahn—Noerr LLP Munich, Germany Anne Marie Verschuur—NautaDutilh Amsterdam, The Netherlands Jordi Güell—Curell Suñol Barcelona, Spain Pier Luigi Roncaglia—Studio Legale SIB Florence, Italy Meriem Loudiyi—INLEX Paris, France Ivo Rungg—Binder Grösswang Vienna, Austria Nina Ringen—Rønne & Lundgren Copenhagen, Denmark Johan Norderyd—Lindahl Malmö, Sweden Tanguy de Haan—NautaDutilh Brussels, Belgium March–April, 2016 Vol. 106 No. 2 INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION Powerful Network Powerful Brands 655 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017-5646 Telephone: +1 (212) 768-9887 email: [email protected] Facsimile: +1 (212) 768-7796 OFFICERS OF THE ASSOCIATION RONALD VAN TUIJL .................................................................................................................. President JOSEPH FERRETTI ...........................................................................................................President Elect TISH L. BERARD .............................................................................................................. Vice President DAVID LOSSIGNOL ........................................................................................................... Vice President AYALA DEUTSCH ..................................................................................................................... Treasurer TIKI DARE ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Authorities Administering Import Certificate/Delivery Verification (IC/DV
    Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce Pt. 748, Supp. 4 (v) In-country transfers. To request an in- Block 3: Nature of Business of Ultimate country transfer, you must specify ‘‘in-coun- Consignee named in Block 1. Complete both try transfer’’ in Block 9 (Special Purpose) ‘‘A’’ and ‘‘B’’. and mark ‘‘Reexport’’ in Block 5 (Type of Possible choices for ‘‘A’’ include: broker, Application) of the BIS–748P ‘‘Multipurpose distributor, fabricator, manufacturer, whole- Application’’ form. The application also saler, retailer, value added reseller, original must specify the same foreign country for equipment manufacturer, etc. both the original ultimate consignee and the Possible choices for ‘‘B’’ include: contrac- new ultimate consignee. tual, franchise, distributor, wholesaler, con- tinuing and regular individual business, etc. [61 FR 12812, Mar. 25, 1996] Block 4: Additional Information. Provide any other information not appearing else- EDITORIAL NOTE: For FEDERAL REGISTER ci- where on the form such as other parties to tations affecting supplement no. 2 to part the transaction, and any other material 748, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, facts that may be of value in considering li- which appears in the Finding Aids section of cense applications supported by this state- the printed volume and on GPO Access. ment. Block 5: Assistance in Preparing State- SUPPLEMENT NO. 3 TO PART 748—BIS– ment. Name all persons, other than employ- 711, STATEMENT BY ULTIMATE CON- ees of the ultimate consignee or purchaser, SIGNEE AND PURCHASER INSTRUC- who assisted in the preparation of this form. Block 6: Ultimate Consignee. Enter the re- TIONS quested information and sign the statement All information must be typed or legibly in ink.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Trademark Law and Practice
    WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION INTRODUCTION TO TRADEMARK LAW & PRACTICE THE BASIC CONCEPTS A WIPO TRAINING MANUAL GENEVA 1993 (Second Edition) ( ( WIPO PUBLICATION No 653 (El ISBN 92-805-0167-4 WIPO 1993 PREFACE The present publication is the second edition of a volume of the same title that was published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in 1987 and reprinted in 1990. The first edition was written by Mr. Douglas Myall, former Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, United Kingdom. The present revised edition of the publication has been prepared by Mr. Gerd Kunze, Vevey, Switzerland, and reflects his extensive expertise and experience in the administration of the trademark operations of a large international corporation, Nestle S. A., as well as his intensive involvement, as a leading representative of several international non-governmental organizations, in international meetings convened by WIPO. This publication is intended to provide a practical introduction to trademark administration for those with little or no experience of the subject but who may have to deal with it in an official or business capacity. Throughout the text, the reader is invited to answer questions relating to the text. Those questions are numbered to correspond to the answers that are given, with a short commentary, in Appendix I. Arpad Bogsch Director General World Intellectual Property Organization February 1993 ( ( LIST OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. TRADEMARKS AND OTHER SIGNS: A GENERAL SURVEY 7 1.1 Use of trademarks in commerce . 9 1.2 What is a trademark?. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 1.3 Need for legal protection .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 1.4 How can a trademark be protected? .
    [Show full text]