RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/Q2/EEC/1
1October 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-4067)
Original:English/French/Spanish Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
REVIEW OFLEGISLATION ONTRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATIONS AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS
European Communities1
Thepresent document reproduces thequestions puttothedelegation oftheEuropean
Communitiesandtheresponsesgiveninthereviewoflegislationontrademarks,geographicalindications
andindustrial designs inthecontext oftheCouncil 'smeeting of11-15 November 1996.2,3
_______________
I. REPLY TOTHE GENERAL QUESTION CONCERNING PRIORITY RIGHTS4
Doesyourcountry recognize arightofpriority onthebasisofanearlier trademark application
filedinanyother WTO Member byanational ofaWTO Member?
AsfarasCommunity lawisconcerned, reference ismade toArticle 29,paragraph 1ofCouncil
Regulation (EC) No.40/94, asamended byCouncil Regulation (EC) No.3288/94, which reads as
follows: "Aperson whohasdulyfiledanapplication foratrademark, inorforanyState party to
theParisConvention, ortotheAgreement Establishing theWorld Trade Organization, orhissuccessors
intitle,shallenjoy, forthepurpose offiling aCommunity trademark application forthesametrademark
inrespect ofgoods orservices which areidentical withorcontained within those forwhich the
application hasbeenfiled, arightofpriority during aperiod ofsixmonths fromthedateoffiling of
thefirstapplication".
II. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYNEW ZEALAND
1. Please explain howArticle 15oftheTRIPS Agreement isfullyencompassed byTitleII,Article 4
ofCouncil Regulation (EC)40/94. Forexample, arecombinations ofsignsandcombinations ofcolours
included?
1Asregards lawsandregulations relevant totheareas under review asnotified bytheECunder Article 63.2ofthe
Agreement ,referenceismade todocument IP/N/1/EEC/1/Rev.1 aswellasdocument sIP/N/1/EEC/T/1-3, IP/N/1/EEC/G/1-2
andIP/N/1/EEC/O/1-2.
2Theminutes ofthismeeting arecontained indocument IP/C/M/11.
3Thequestions from byIndia asafollow-up toitsinitial questions 1and3were posed after thereview meeting.
4Atthemeeting oftheTRIPS Council of11-15 November 1996, Members agreed torespond tothisquestion inthe
context ofthepresent review (document IP/C/M/11, paragraph 43).IP/Q2/EEC/1
Page2
Article 4oftheCouncil Regulation (EC)40/94 isinconformity withtherelevant provisions
ofArticle 15oftheTRIPS Agreement. According toArticle 4oftheRegulation, anysignwhich is
capable ofdistinguishing thegoods orservices ofoneundertaking from those ofanother andwhich
iscapable ofbeing represented graphically, mayconstitute aCommunity trademark. Thelisting of
certain types ofsigns ofwhich atrademark mayconsist, contained inArticle 4oftheRegulation, is
notexhaustive, butmerely contains examples ofsuchsigns. Thus, theArticle doesnotruleoutthe
possibility ofregistering asatrademark acombination ofcolours orasingle colour, provided that
theyarecapable ofdistinguishing thegoods orservices ofoneundertaking from those ofanother
undertaking.
2. (a) Does EClaw,forexample TitleII,Article 7(1)(g) ofCouncil Regulation (EC)40/94,
prevent theregistration ofatrademark where theapplicant hasusedthename ofaWTO Member,
either onitsownorincombination withother words, butwhere theapplicant andthegoods orservices,
thesubject oftheapplication, havenoconnection totheWTO Member?
(b) Iftheanswer to(a)above isintheaffirmative, please confirm thatevenwhere a
trademark hasbecome distinctive, thiswould stillnotenable atrademark tobe
registered.
(c) Iftheanswer to(b)isinthenegative, please explain thejustification.
(a) TheCommunity trademark system, established byCouncil Regulation (EC) 40/94, became
operational on1April 1996. Todate,Article 7(1)(g) oftheRegulation hasnotyetbeenapplied
inpractice. Nevertheless, isshould benoted that,according tothesaidprovision, thedecisive
element iswhether thetrademark concerned isofsuchanature astodeceive thepublic. This
isinaccordance withtherelevant provisions oftheParisConvention. Inpractice, thequestion
ofwhether agiven trademark unduly indicates aconnection toaWTO Member totheextent
thatitdeceives thepublic, willdepend onthecircumstances ofthecase. Inthisrespect, the
goods orservices forwhich thetrademark isusedmayalsoplayanimportant role.
(b/c) Itfollows logically from Article 7(3)ofCouncil Regulation (EC) 40/94 that,evenwhere a
trademark hasbecome distinctive, thiswould notenable itsregistration ifArticle 7(1)(g) of
theRegulation applies.
3. Please provide examples oftrademarks which would be(orcould be)classed asbeing "contrary
topublic policy" (Title II,Article 7.1(f)).
TheCommunity trademark system, established byCouncil Regulation (EC) 40/94, became
operational on1April 1996. Todate, Article 7(1)(f) oftheRegulation hasnotyetbeenapplied in
practice. Theconcept of"contrary topublic policy ortoaccepted principles ofmorality" isinaccordance
withtherelevant provisions oftheParis Convention. Astotheconcept of"public policy", itshould
benoted thattheFrench textofArticle 7(1)(f) oftheRegulation refers to"contraire àl'ordre public"
(contrary tothepublic order), which reflects inasomewhat clearer waywhatismeant bythisconcept.
Examples oftrademarks which might beclassed under thisconcept, could bewords orimages which
areoffensive, suchasswear words orracially derogatory images, orthose which areblasphemous.
4. Please explain theroleandresponsibilities respectively oftheCommission andMember States
ingiving effect toobligations under Section 3(Geographical Indications) oftheTRIPS Agreement.IP/Q2/EEC/1
Page3
A. Wines andspirits
CouncilRegulation(EEC)823/87laysdowntheconditionswhichmustberespectedbyMember
States fortherecognition ofquality wines produced inspecified regions (quality wines psr). The
provisions oftheRegulation concern inparticular thefollowing: demarcation oftheareaofproduction;
vinevarieties; minimum alcohol content; yield perhectare; analysis andassessment oforganoleptic
characteristics, etc. (Article 2).Member States adopt thespecific provisions andrecognize the
geographical indications ofthewines produced intheirterritory (Article 3.1). TheCommission is
responsible forthepublication ofallthegeographical indications recognized bytheMember States.
Council Regulation (EC)3290/94, Annex XVI, modifies Council Regulation (EEC) 822/87,
which establishes acommon market organization forwine, byadding Article 72a,which implements
Article 23.1oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Forspirit drinks andaromatized wines, Article 5ofCouncil Regulation (EEC) 1576/89 and
Article 6ofCouncil Regulation (EEC) 1601/91 respectively laydown therules concerning theuse
ofgeographical indications inrelation tospirit drinks oraromatized wines fromtheCommunity, the
listofwhich isinannexes tothese Regulations.
Regulation (EC)3378/94 hasmodified theprovisions concerning spirits andaromatized wines.
Itmodifiestheabove-mentionedRegulation1601/91,whichlaysdownrulesforthedefinition,description
andpresentation ofaromatized wines, byadding Article 10a,which implements Article 23.1ofthe
TRIPS Agreement. Italsomodifies theabove-mentioned Regulation 1576/89 onthedescription and
presentation ofspirit drinks, byadding anArticle 11a,implementing Article 23.1oftheTRIPS
Agreement inrespect ofspirits.
Inthecontext oftheimplementation oftheWTO Agreement, Council Regulation (EC)3288/94
hasamended Council Regulation (EC)40/94 ontheCommunity trademark. Inparticular, toArticle 7(1)
ofRegulation 40/94 which laysdown theabsolute grounds forrefusal ofregistration ofatrademark,
aparagraph isadded totheeffect thatgeographical indications forwines andspirits shallberefused
registration ifthewines andspirits donothavethatorigin.
B. Other geographical indications inrelation toagricultural products andfoodstuffs
Council Regulation 2081/92/EEC setsouttheprocedure fortheregistration ofgeographical
indications intheCommunity territory. Theprocedure contained inArticles 5,6and7isasfollows:
1. Agroupofproducersmustsubmitadetailedapplicationforregistrationtothecompetent
authority oftheMember State, inaccordance withtheconditions specified inthe
Regulation.
2. Iftheapplication isconsidered tobeinconformity withtheRegulation, itshallbe
referred totheCommunity authorities, whowillverify thattheconditions ofthe
Regulation havebeenformally satisfied andwillpublish theapplication intheOfficial
Journal toallow other parties theopportunity toraiseobjections.
3. Ifanobjection israised, thefinaldecision onregistration istaken bytheCommission
andtheMember States.
TheMember States areresponsible forcontrolling theapplication oftheRegulation. The
protection granted bytheRegulation isexofficio, thatistosaythattheMember States haveadutyIP/Q2/EEC/1
Page4
toensure thateachregistered geographical indication ordesignation oforigin isprotected against any
encroachment taking place within theEU.
Asfortheprotection ofgeographical indications ofWTO Members, itisnecessary todistinguish
thefollowing situations:
1. Theprotection pursuant toArticle 22oftheTRIPS Agreement, which isguaranteed
bytheMemberStates'applicationofCouncilDirective79/112/EECconcerninglabelling
(prohibition tomislead thepublic). Intheevent ofaproblem relating toageographical
indication ofaWTO Member, theECMember States mustalsoensure thepossibility
fortheoperators concerned totakelegalaction intheircourts.
2. Theexofficio protection pursuant totheabove-mentioned Regulation 2081/92, for
which either:
- theprocedure followed byCommunity producers asoutlined above mustbe
followed, inaccordance withtheprinciple ofnational treatment; or
- abilateral agreement should beconcluded asenvisaged inArticle 12,when
thesystem ofprotection isequivalent totheCommunity regime.
C. Other geographical indications
TheseareprotectedagainstmisleadingadvertisingunderCouncilDirective84/450/EECrelating
totheapproximation ofthelaws, regulations andadministrative provisions oftheMember States
concerning misleading advertising. Article 3oftheDirective provides that,indetermining whether
advertising ismisleading, account shallbetaken inparticular ofanyinformation itcontains concerning
thecharacteristics ofgoods orservices suchas[...]geographical orcommercial origin. According
toArticle 4ofthisDirective, Member States shallensure thatadequate andeffective means existfor
thecontrol ofmisleading advertising.
III. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYTHE UNITED STATES
1. PleaseexplaintherelationshipbetweentheFirstCouncilDirectiveoftheCounciloftheEuropean
Communities relating totrademarks (89/104/EEC), Council Regulations 40/94 and3288/94 andthe
European Commission Regulations, ontheonehand, andthelawsoftheMember States oftheEuropean
Communities, ontheother hand, withregard to:
- subject matter thatcanberegistered asatrademark;
- procedures forregistration andcancellation ofregistered marks, either intheform
ofaCommunity trademark orasanationally registered mark; and
- enforcement procedures andremedies forCommunity trademarks andnationally
registered marks.
CouncilRegulation(EC)40/94ontheCommunitytrademarkandtheimplementingCommission
Regulations relating thereto haveestablished theCommunity trademark system.
Under thissystem, protection ofatrademark canbeacquired forthewhole territory ofthe
European Community onthebasis ofthefiling ofonesingle application foritsregistration asaIP/Q2/EEC/1
Page5
Community trademark attheOffice forHarmonization intheInternal Market (trademarks anddesigns)
inAlicante, Spain. Once registered, aCommunity trademark shallhaveaunitary character forthe
whole territory oftheEuropean Community, subject onlytotherules laiddown inthesaidCouncil
Regulation. TheCommunity trademark system hasnotreplaced thenational trademark systems of
theMember States. Community trademarks existalongside national trademarks.
Inorder toensure that,onprinciple items ofsubstantive trademark law,national trademarks
andCommunity trademarks aresubject tothesame rules, Council Regulation (EC) 40/94 contains
thesame provisions onsubstantive trademark lawastheFirst Council Directive 89/104/EEC to
approximate thelawsoftheMember States. Under Community law,theMember States areobliged
totranspose theprovisions oftheDirective intotheir national trademark laws, which has,inthe
meantime, beendone inrespect ofDirective 89/104/EEC. ThisFirst Directive, however, didnot
harmonize theprovisions ofprocedure concerning theregistration, therevocation andtheinvalidity
ofnational trademarks.
Asaconsequence oftheapproach described above, thedefinition ofsignsofwhich atrademark
mayconsist applies equally tonational trademarks andCommunity trademarks. However, therules
relating totheprocedures forregistration andthecancellation ofregistered marks, andtherules on
enforcement procedures andremedies mayvary, depending onwhether itisanational oraCommunity
trademark.
2. PleaseexplainhowvariancesbetweenprovisionsinEuropeanCouncilDirectivesandRegulations
andnational legislation intheMember States areresolved.
Pursuant toArticle 189oftheECTreaty, aRegulation shallhavegeneral application. Itshall
bebinding initsentirety anddirectly applicable inallMember States. ADirective shallbebinding,
astotheresult tobeachieved, upon eachMember State towhich itisaddressed, butshallleave to
thenational authorities thechoice ofform andmethod.
Article 169oftheECTreaty provides that,iftheCommission considers thattheMember State
concerned hasfailed tofulfil anobligation under thisTreaty, itshalldeliver areasoned opinion on
thematter aftergiving theState concerned theopportunity tosubmit itsobservations. IftheState
concerned doesnotcomply withtheopinion within theperiod laiddown bytheCommission, thelatter
maybring thematter before theEuropean Court ofJustice.
3. Article 4oftheFirst Council Directive relating totrademarks andArticle 4ofCouncil
Regulation 40/94 setforththetypes ofsigns thatarecapable ofbeing registered asatrademark. The
listofsigns doesnotinclude colour marks. Please explain whether colour marks arecapable of
constituting atrademark under thisprovision oftheCouncil Directive and,ifnot,please explain how
suchprotection ismade available under European Community jurisprudence.
Thelisting ofcertain types ofsigns ofwhich atrademark mayconsist, contained inArticle 2
oftheDirective andinArticle 4oftheRegulation, isnotexhaustive, butmerely contains examples
ofsuchsigns. Thus, these Articles donotruleoutthepossibility ofregistering asatrademark a
combination ofcolours orasingle colour, provided thattheyarecapable ofdistinguishing thegoods
orservices ofoneundertaking from those ofanother undertaking.
4. Please indicate whether anyprovisions ofDirectives orRegulations oftheCouncil ofthe
European Communities orEuropean Commission Regulations address theissue ofobstacles tothe
registration ofamark deriving fromthenature ofthegoods orservices sought tobeprotected. If
so,please identify andexplain thesubject matter thatisexcluded fromregistration under suchauthority,
andtherelevant provisions oftheseDirectives andRegulations thatserve asabasis fortheexclusions.IP/Q2/EEC/1
Page6
There arenoCommunity provisions inforce which contain ahorizontal exclusion forthe
registration oftrademarks onthesolebasis thatthetrademark istobeapplied foracertain sector of
goods orservices. This, however, doesnotruleoutthat,where additional grounds apply, trademarks
mayberefused registration. Forexample, Article 7(1)(g) ofCouncil Regulation (EC) 40/94 and
Article 3(1)(g) oftheFirstCouncil Directive 89/104/EEC provide thattrademarks which areofsuch
anature astodeceive thepublic astothenature ofthegoods orservices shallnotberegistered.
5. Please indicate whether anyprovisions ofDirectives orRegulations oftheCouncil ofthe
EuropeanCommunitiesorEuropeanCommissionRegulationsaddresstheissueoflikelihoodofconfusion.
Ifso,please explain whether, under suchauthority, Community lawprovides apresumption oflikelihood
ofconfusion where anidentical signisusedonidentical goods, asisrequired byArticle 16.1ofthe
TRIPS Agreement. Please identify andexplain thelegalbasis andrationale forthenoted presumption
under therelevant lawsorregulations.
Pursuant toArticles 8(1)(b) and9(1)(b) ofCouncil Regulation (EC)40/94 andArticles 4(1)(b)
and5(1)(b) oftheFirst Council Directive 89/104/EEC, theconcept of"likelihood ofconfusion"
constitutes, respectively, oneoftheelements onthebasis ofwhich trademarks mayberefused
registration, andoneoftheelements toestablish trademark infringement. Theaforementioned Articles
provide (inparagraph 1(a))absolute protection where anidentical signisusedforidentical goods or
services.
6. Please indicate whether anyprovisions ofDirectives orRegulations oftheCouncil ofthe
European Communities orEuropean Commission Regulations address theissue ofdetermination of
whether amark is"well known". Ifso,please explain thestandard thatistobeusedunder such
authorityfordeterminingwhetheramarkiswellknown,pursuanttoArticle16.2oftheTRIPSAgreement.
The relevant provisions oftheFirst Council Directive 89/104/EEC andCouncil
Regulation (EC) 40/94 donotaddress theissue ofwhether amark iswellknown.
[Follow-up question from theUS]
Intheanswer toquestion 6,theECstates that relevant provisions ofCouncil
Directive 89/104/EEC andCouncil Regulation (EC)40/94 donotaddress theissueofwhether amark
iswellknown. Asaresult, howdoestheECcomply withArticle 16.2oftheTRIPS Agreement?
Theanswer toquestion 6should bereadinconjunction withthatquestion. Inthiscontext,
theECindicated thattheissue ofthedetermination whether amark iswellknown isnotaddressed
bytheprovisions ofDirective 89/104/EEC andCouncil Regulation (EC) 40/94.
Theissue ofprotection ofwell-known marks assuch, pursuant toArticle 16.2oftheTRIPS
Agreement andArticle 6bisoftheParis Convention, isdealtwithinArticles 8(2)(c), 9and52(1) of
Council Regulation (EC)40/94 ontheCommunity trademark. According totheseprovisions, theholder
ofawell-known mark, inthesense ofArticle 6bisoftheParisConvention, mayoppose theregistration
of,orinvalidate, younger Community trademarks forsimilar goods andservices.
7. Please indicate whether anyprovisions ofDirectives orRegulations oftheCouncil ofthe
European Communities orEuropean Commission Regulations address theissue ofwell-known marks
inthecontext ofArticle 16.3oftheTRIPS Agreement. Inparticular, please indicate whether such
authority ensures thattheowner ofawell-known mark isprotected against theuseofitsmark on
dissimilar goods orservices, iftheuseindicates aconnection between thegoods orservices andthe
owner ofthewell-known mark islikely tobedamaged bytheunauthorized useofthemark.IP/Q2/EEC/1
Page7
Articles 4(3),4(4)(a) and5(2)ofDirective 89/104/EEC andArticles 8(5)and9(1)(c) ofCouncil
Regulation (EC) 40/94 address theissue ofwell-known marks inthecontext of,andinconformity
with, Article 16.3oftheTRIPS Agreement. Itshould benoted that,pursuant tothese Articles, any
mark which hasareputation enjoys protection against dilution, which implies thatalower threshold
applies.5
8. Article 15(1) oftheCouncil Regulation establishing theCommunity trademark allows the
proprietor ofatrademark topresent "proper reasons fornon-use" ofatrademark toprevent cancellation
oftheregistration ofthemarkonthebasis of"non-use". Please explain thecircumstances orsituations
thatwould constitute "proper reasons" sufficient tosatisfy thisprovision, including, where relevant,
information regarding administrative orjudicial decisions addressing thisissue.
TheCommunity trademark system, established byCouncil Regulation (EC) 40/94, became
operational on1April 1996. Forthisreason, questions concerning theinterpretation ofArticle 15(1)
ofthesaidRegulation arenotexpected toariseintheforeseeable future.
9. Please indicate whether design protection issubject toanyCommunity-wide legislation and,
ifso,pleasedescribethemethodsbywhichindustrialdesignsareprotectedintheEuropeanCommunities,
inparticular:
- theformorforms ofintellectual property usedtoprotect thedesign
(e.g., patent, copyright, suigeneris);
- theconditions thatmustbesatisfied toobtain thegrant ofsuchprotection
(e.g., whether designs mustbenewororiginal andtheparameters ofthese concepts),
andabriefdescription oftheregistration orgranting procedure;
- thenature oftherights granted andthetermofprotection provided;
- thenature ofremedies available totheowner ofeachtypeofprotection, including a
description oftheconditions thatmaybeimposed (e.g., whether commercial useis
required); and
- whether anyexceptions toprotection orrights existforeachtypeofintellectual property
involved.
TheCommission proposals foraDirective ontheharmonization ofthelawsoftheMember
States ontheprotection ofdesigns andforaRegulation ontheCommunity Design arepending before
theCouncil andtheEuropean Parliament. Thus, forthetimebeing, design protection isnotsubject
toCommunity-wide legislation and,consequently, users ofindustrial designs mustrelyonprotection
attheMember State level.
10. Please explain howtextile designs areprotected under European Community law.
Seetheanswer toUSquestion 9above.
11. InSection 8.2ofitsNotice toApplicants, theEuropean Medicines Evaluation Agency, which
isresponsible forthecentralized medicinal product registrations covering alloftheEuropean Union,
indicates thatonlyasingle trademark willbeapproved foreachproduct thatisgranted amarketing
5SeealsoUSquestion 13below anditsfollow-up.IP/Q2/EEC/1
Page8
authorization. Please explain howthispractice complies withArticle 20oftheTRIPS Agreement, which
provides thattheuseofatrademark inthecourse oftrade shall notbeunjustifiably encumbered by
special requirements.
Thepolicy oftheEuropean Medicines Evaluation Agency isthatanapplicant formarketing
authorization formedicinal products under Council Regulation (EEC) 2309/93 must adopt asingle
trademarkforusethroughouttheCommunityforsuchproducts.TheAgency,however,doesnotimpose
anyrequirements ontheuseofthesingle trademark inrelation tosuchproducts which conflict with
Article20oftheTRIPSAgreement.Theusersofthecentralizedprocedurearenotobliged,forexample,
tousetheir marks withanother mark, tousethem inaspecial form ortousethem inamanner
detrimental tothedistinctive character ofthemarks concerned.
[Follow-up question from theUS]
Ifanentity hadadifferent registered trademark forthesamemedicinal product intwoMember
States oftheECprior tothepromulgation ofCouncil Regulation (EC) 40/94 andCouncil
Regulation (EEC) 2309/93, willthisentity beabletousethese marks andmaintain theregistrations
under these Regulations?
Yes.Council Regulation (EC)40/94 hasnotreplaced thetrademark systems ofMember States,
nordidCouncil Regulation (EEC) 2309/93 replace national authorization procedures forthemarketing
ofpharmaceuticals inagiven Member State.
12. Please explain whether andhow, under relevant European Community directives, lawsor
regulations, trademarks existing priortotheentryintoforceoftheWTOAgreement areprotected against
appropriation fromactions incident torecognition ofageographical indication. Ifnot,please explain
howthispractice isconsistent withArticle 24.5oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Council Regulation (EC) 40/94 became operational on1April 1996. Thus, noCommunity
trademarks existprior totheentry intoforce oftheWTO Agreement. Directive 89/104/EEC onthe
approximation ofthelawsoftheMember States relating totrademarks hasnotbeenmodified following
theentry intoforce oftheWTO Agreement. Asaresult, nonewprovisions havebeenintroduced
intotheDirective which would oblige theMember States toprejudice eligibility for,orthevalidity
of,theregistration ofatrademark, ortherighttouseatrademark, onthebasisthatsuchatrademark
isidentical with, orsimilar to,ageographical indication, where suchatrademark existed prior tothe
entry intoforce oftheWTO Agreement.
Moreover, Article 40,paragraph 3,second indent ofCouncil Regulation (EEC) 2392/89 (as
amended byCouncil Regulation (EEC) 3897/91) concerning description andpresentation ofwines and
grape musts envisages thattheholder ofawell-known registered brand name forawineoragrape
mustwhich contains wording thatisrelated togeographical indications maycontinue tousethatbrand
name if:
- itcorresponds totheidentity ofitsoriginal holder oroftheoriginal provider ofthe
name; and
- thebrand name wasregistered atleast25years before theofficial recognition ofthe
geographical name inquestion bytheproducer Member Stateandithasactually been
usedwithout interruption.
The same rule applies tosparkling wines (Article 13,paragraph 3ofCouncil
Regulation (EEC) 2333/92).IP/Q2/EEC/1
Page9
Asregards geographical indications anddesignations oforigin ofagricultural products or
foodstuffs registered under Council Regulation 2081/92/EEC, theprovisions ofArticle 14,paragraphs
2and3apply withregard totrademarks existing prior totheregistration.
Under Article 14(3), adesignation oforigin orageographical indication shallnotberegistered
where, inlightofthetrademark 'sreputation andrenown andthelength oftimeithasbeenused,
registration isliable tomislead theconsumer astothetrueidentity oftheproduct.
Under Article 14(2), useofatrademark corresponding tooneofthesituations referred toin
Article 13ofRegulation 2081/92 (usurpation, imitation, direct orindirect evocation, etc.)inrelation
toaregistered geographical indication ordesignation oforigin, ispermitted under thefollowing
conditions:
- Thetrademark wasregistered ingood faithbefore thedateonwhich application for
registration ofadesignation oforigin orgeographical indication waslodged;
- Itcanbedemonstrated thattheuseofthetrademark could bedoneinconformity with
Community law;
- Itcannot bedemonstrated, atthetimeofregistration ofthetrademark, thatthere are
thefollowing grounds forinvalidity orrevocation asprovided bytheFirstCouncil
Directive (89/104/EEC) ontheapproximation ofthelawsoftheMember States relating
totrademarks, i.e.:
(a) thetrademarkisexclusivelyanindicationofgeographicalorigin(Article3(1)(c);
(b) thetrademark isofsuchanature astodeceive thepublic astothegeographical
origin oftheproduct (Article 3(1)(g));
(c) asaconsequence oftheusemade ofitbytheproprietor ofthetrademark, or
withhisconsent, thetrademark isliable tomislead thepublic, particularly as
tothegeographical origin oftheproduct (Article 12(2)(b)).
13. Please explain whether, under Article 8(5)oftheCouncil Regulation (EC) 40/94, inthe
determination ofwhether atrademark hasa"reputation" intheCommunity, account istaken of
knowledge ofthetrademark intherelevant sector ofthepublic, including knowledge obtained asa
result ofpromotion ofthetrademark, andhowthispractice isconsistent withArticle 16.2oftheTRIPS
Agreement.
TheCommunity trademark system, established byCouncil Regulation (EC) 40/94, became
operational on1April 1996. Todate,theconcept of"reputation" under Article 8(5)oftheRegulation
hasnotyetbeenapplied inpractice. Inaddition, neither Article 8(5)oftheRegulation noranyother
relevant Community instrument contains elements ontheinterpretation of"reputation". Nevertheless,
itshould benoted that"reputation" constitutes alower threshold than"well known".
[Follow-up question from theUS]
Does theECplantoissue adirective orother guidelines concerning thestandard orcriteria
tobeusedtodetermine theconcept of"reputation"?
TheECdoesnotplantoissueadirective orotherguidelines concerning thestandards orcriteria
tobeusedtodetermine theconcept of"reputation". Aninterpretation ofthisconcept willbegivenIP/Q2/EEC/1
Page10
bytheOffice forHarmonization intheInternal Market (trademarks anddesigns) and,ifconflicts on
theinterpretation ofthisconcept weretoarise, bythecompetent courts, including theEuropean Court
ofJustice.
14. Please specify thecriteria andfactors usedbytheECand/or ECMember States todetermine,
under Article 22.4oftheTRIPS Agreement, thatageographical indication which isatruename in
oneWTO Member "falsely represents tothepublic thatthegoods originated" intheterritory ofanother
WTO Member. Inanswering thisquestion, please assume thatthetruecountry oforigin isclearly
andconspicuously marked onthegood inamanner thatnomember ofthepublic canmisunderstand
itstrueorigins. Please include citations toCouncil andCommission Regulations, national legislation
andother authoritative decisions enumerating thecriteria andfactors.
Concerning designations oforigin orgeographical indications protected byCouncil
Regulation 2081/92/EEC, Article 13,paragraph 1(b)provides thatregistered names shallbeprotected
against "anymeasure, imitation orevocation, evenifthetrueorigin oftheproduct isindicated...".
Concerningwines,thegeneralruleiscontainedinArticle40,paragraph1,firstindentofCouncil
Regulation (EEC) 2392/89, which envisages thatthedescription andpresentation ofwines andgrape
musts, andanyformofadvertising forsuchproducts, mustnotbeincorrect orlikely tocause confusion
ortomislead thepersons towhom theyareaddressed asregards, among other things, geographical
indications. Thisprovision shallapply eveniftheindication isusedintranslation, orwithreference
totheactual origin orwithadditions suchas"type", "style", "method", "imitation", "brand" orthe
like.
Furthermore, thelastparagraph ofArticle 29(1) ofthesame Regulation provides thatthe
geographical descriptions forimported wines must notbelikely tobeconfused withatermusedto
describe aquality wineproduced inaspecified region inthelistreferred toinArticle 1(3)ofCouncil
Regulation (EEC) 823/87, atable wine inthelistdrawn upinconnection withArticle 2(3)(i) of
Regulation (EEC) 2392/89 oranimported wineinthelistsunder agreements between thirdcountries
andtheCommunity.Theabove-mentionedtermsusedtodescribeCommunitywinesarelistedinOfficial
Journal C344of15November 1996, Notices 344/07 and344/08. Theterms usedtodescribe imported
wines arethose listed under letter Boftheannexes oftheagreements between theCommunity and
Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania (Council Decisions 93/722/EC, 93/724/EC and93/726/EC, Official
Journal L337of31December 1993) andthose listed under BofAnnex IIoftheAgreement between
theEuropean Community andAustralia (Council Decision 94/184/EC, Official Journal L86of31
March 1994).
Concerning spirit drinks andaromatized wines, please seeparagraph 2ofArticle 5ofCouncil
Regulation(EEC)1576/89andparagraph3ofArticle6ofCouncilRegulation(EEC)1601/91asnotified
totheCouncil forTRIPS andcirculated toWTO Members.
15. Article 23.1oftheTRIPS Agreement provides thataWTO Member shallprovide legalmeans
foran"interestedparty"topreventtheuseofgeographicalindicationsforawineorspiritnotoriginating
intheplace indicated.
(a) HowdotheECand/or ECMember States define an"interested party"? Isitonlya
WTOMember asanational government? Isitanindustry member, suchasaproducer,
exporter, orimporter ofwines orspirits?
(b) Please describe withspecificity theprocess bywhich an"interested party" canseek
redress. Withwhatagency, division, department, unitofgovernment, etc.,doesthe
interested party fileitscomplaint?IP/Q2/EEC/1
Page11
(c) Howdoestheentity conduct aninvestigation intoacomplaint? Isitconducted bythe
Commission orbyaMember State? Whoemploys theinvestigators?
(d) Whomakes thefinaldecision aftertheinvestigation iscomplete? Maythedecision
beappealed? Ifyes,towhom mayitbeappealed?
(e) Howdoesthedecision-maker enforce itsdecision? What penalties andsanctions are
available?
Inresponding totheabove questions about theprocess andprocedures used, please include
specific citations toCouncil andCommission Regulations, national legislation andother authoritative
decisions.
Article 72aofCouncil Regulation (EEC) 822/87 envisages thatMember States shalltakeall
necessary measures toenable interested parties toprevent, ontheterms stipulated inArticles 23and24
oftheTRIPS Agreement, theuseintheCommunity ofageographical indication attached totheproducts
referred toinArticle 1,paragraph 2(b)oftheRegulation forproducts notoriginating intheplace
indicated bythegeographical indication inquestion, evenwhere thetrueorigin ofthegoods isindicated
orthegeographical indication isusedintranslation oraccompanied byexpressions suchas"kind",
"type", "style", "imitation" orthelike.
Itis,therefore, Member States whoareresponsible forproviding thelegalmeans forinterested
parties toprevent theuseofageographical indication forawineorspirit notoriginating intheplace
indicated, inaccordance withArticle 23.1oftheTRIPS Agreement. Interested parties mustseekredress
fromthenational authorities oftheECMember States. Member States 'lawslaydown theprocedures
tobefollowed, thecompetent authorities involved, theinstances ofappeal andsanctions orpenalties
applied bytheauthorities. Member States 'courts mayrequest theEuropean Court ofJustice for
preliminary rulings ontheinterpretation ofCouncil Regulation (EEC) 822/87 under Article 177of
theTreaty Establishing theEuropean Community.
Further, onthemeasures adopted byECMember States under Article 23oftheTRIPS
AgreementandunderArticle72aofCouncilRegulation(EEC)822/87,Article11aofCouncilRegulation
(EEC) 1576/89 andArticle 10aofCouncil Regulation (EEC) 1601/91, asapreliminary remark, one
should underline that,pursuant toCouncil Regulation (EEC) 2048/89 laying down general rules on
controls inthewinesector, controls onthedescription andpresentation ofwineproducts aresubject
tocommon principles andassistance proceedings between aMember State'scompetent authority and
theCommission. Under thisregulation, thecontrol authority designated inoneMember State may
takeprotective measures regarding thedescription, presentation andmarketing ofawinesector product.
Itmayrequest assistance from theCommission orfrom thecompetent authority ofanother Member
State. TheCommission shallbenotified whenever theproduct which isthesubject ofthecontrol
activities originates inathirdcountry andifthemarketing ofthisproduct maybeofspecific interest
toother Member States.
(a) According toMember States 'legislation, interested parties arethose damaged orlikely tobe
damaged bythemisuse ofageographical indication, i.e.producers entitled tousethe
geographical indication ortheir representatives. Before anadministrative body oran
Ombudsman, "any person" (consumer, importer, retailer, producer, exporter) mayfilea
complaint. However, itisunlikely thatnational governments from WTO Members mayfile
complaints inaMember State: onlyItalyprovides forsuchapossibility.
National governments from WTO Members areofcourse freetocomplain totheEuropean
Commission orMember States 'governments.IP/Q2/EEC/1
Page12
(b) InallMember States, redress canbesought through civilproceedings. Therefore, theplaintiff
mayhavetoprove direct interest intheclaim. Where misuses ofgeographical indications
aresubject tocriminal penalties, asinBelgium, Germany, France, Italy, Portugal andSpain,
aninterested party mayfileacomplaint tothepolice orthepublic prosecutor, whomaythen
decide tolaunch acriminal investigation. InAustria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Portugal
andtheUnited Kingdom, aninterested party mayalsofileacomplaint toanadministrative
authority intheMinistry ofAgriculture, Ministry ofEconomy orlocalCouncil according to
eachMember State'slegislation. Finland andSweden provide foramarket jurisdiction where
thefirstinstance istheOmbudsman andtheappellate body istheMarket Court. InFinland,
onlymembersorrepresentativesoftheaffectedindustryortheOmbudsmanmayfileacomplaint
before thiscourt.
WTOMembergovernmentsmaymakerepresentationstotheEuropeanCommissionorMember
States 'governments.
(c) Thewaytheentity conducts aninvestigation depends onwhere theclaim isbrought. Before
acivilcourt, thejudge relies upon evidence presented bytheparties. Incases ofcriminal
investigation, itisconducted "exofficio" bythepolice orother administrative authority vested
withinvestigative powers bythepublic prosecutor.
When thecomplaint ismade toanadministrative authority ortoanOmbudsman, theinvestigator
istheauthority where theclaim isfiled. Inbothsituations, theinvestigator hasthepower
toissue anorder tostoptheinfringement. Iftheorder isnotfollowed, theadministrative
authority maydecide tobring thecasebefore thepublic prosecutor while theOmbudsman may
bring thecasetotheMarket Court inFinland ortotheStockholm CityCourt inSweden.
TheCommission services conduct theirinvestigation uponelements brought bythegovernment
oftheWTO Member.
(d) Thefinaldecision istaken according totheprocedure. Incivilandcriminal cases, anydecision
taken byacourtoffirstinstance maybeappealed, subject torestrictions concerning theamount
ofdamages inGermany. Inadministrative enforcement, anyaction from theadministrative
authority maybeappealed totheMinister andtoadministrative courts. InFinland, adecision
oftheMarket Court maynotbeappealed iftheplaintiff issentenced.
After investigation, theCommission mayraisethematter withtheMember State where the
infringement hastaken place. IftheCommission considers thataMember State hasfailed
tofulfilanobligationundertheEuropeanUnionTreaty,theCommissionshalldeliverareasoned
opinion onthematter. Thelatter maybring thematter before theEuropean Court ofJustice,
iftheMember Stateconcerned doesnotcomply withtheopinion within theperiod laiddown
bytheCommission (Article 169oftheEUTreaty).
(e) Theadministrative authority andtheOmbudsman havethepower toissue anorder tostop
theinfringement and/or togiveadequate information totheconsumer. Their decisions are
enforceable through public prosecution andcourt decisions which mayprovide forpenalties
incaseofnoncompliance withtheorder. Anycivilcourt decision mayorder thedefendant
tostoptheinfringement andtopaydamages. Incriminal cases, thedecision ofthecourt is
enforced "exofficio" andmayconsist ofjailpenalties, atleastinSpain andGermany.
Where theEuropean Court ofJustice finds thataMember State hasfailed toimplement its
obligations under theTreaty andiftheEuropean Commission considers thattheMember State
doesnottakethenecessary measures tocomply withthejudgement oftheCourt ofJustice,IP/Q2/EEC/1
Page13
theEuropean Commission shallbring thematter totheCourt ofJustice, which mayorder
pecuniary sanctions andperiodic penalty payments.
16. Article 23.3oftheTRIPS Agreement provides thateachWTO Member shall determine the
practical conditions under which homonymous geographical indications willbedistinguished fromone
another.
(a) Please describe withspecificity theconditions adopted bytheECand/or ECMember
States thatareemployed orusedtodistinguish between homonymous names. Please
include citations toCouncil andCommission Regulations, national legislation andother
authoritative decisions.
(b) Formany years, theUnited States hasformally recognized thegeographical indications
of"Madera county" (27C.F.R. §4.25a (a)(1)(iv)) and"Madera" Viticultural Area
(27C.F.R. §9.92) forwines produced fromgrapes grown inthese twoareas inthe
State ofCalifornia. Forseveral years, theEChasdeclined torecognize these names
foranywines fromtheUnited States duetothehomonymous name of"Madeira" in
Portugal. Under whatspecific authority doestheECcontinue todenytorecognize
theMadera county andMadera Viticultural Areawines?
(c) TheUnited States formally recognizes thegeographical indication "Bristol County"
(27C.F.R. §4.25a (a)(1)(iv)) forwineproduced fromgrapes grown inthiscounty in
theState ofVirginia. Forseveral years, theEChasdeclined torecognize thisUnited
States 'geographical indication duetothehomonymous name ofBristol, England.
Under whatspecific authority doestheECcontinue todenytorecognize theBristol
County name?
Additionally, representatives oftheCommission havestated thatitobjects totheuseofthe
Bristol County geographical indication duetothetrademark "Harvey 'sBristol Cream" Sherry. Under
whatprovision(s) oftheTRIPS Agreement isthisobjection based?
(a) Thelegalbasisunder which homonymous geographical indications forwines aredistinguished
fromoneanother isprovided byCouncil Regulation (EEC) 2392/89, Article 29paragraph 3
second subparagraph. Thisprovision establishes:
"Exceptions tothegeneral rule,thataname ofageographical unitusedto
describe atablewineoraquality wineofagiven region intheCommunity
maynotbeusedtodescribe animported wine, maybeallowed where such
name isusedinthatthird country todescribe awine inaccordance with
traditional andconsistent usage andoncondition thatitsuseisgoverned by
rules inthatcountry."
Thislegalbasis hassofaronlybeenusedforsolving specific cases inthecontext ofbilateral
agreements.
(b/c) TheECwishes torecall thatthefulltextofArticle 23.3oftheTRIPS Agreement reads as
follows:
"Inthecaseofhomonymous geographical indications forwines, protection
shallbeaccorded toeachindication, subject totheprovisions ofparagraph 4
ofArticle22[seebelow].EachMembershalldeterminethepracticalconditions
under which thehomonymous indications inquestion willbedifferentiatedIP/Q2/EEC/1
Page14
from eachother, taking intoaccount theneedtoensure equitable treatment
oftheproducers concerned andthatconsumers arenotmisled."
Article 22.4oftheTRIPS Agreement reads asfollows:
"The protection under paragraphs 1,2and3shall beapplicable against a
geographical indication which, although literally trueastotheterritory, region
orlocality inwhich thegoods originate, falsely represents tothepublic that
thegoods originate inanother territory."
TheEuropean Community actsinconformity withArticle 23.3oftheTRIPS Agreement as
regards homonymous geographical indications. TheEuropean Community considers thatthe
specific casesindicated aretobeaddressed atabilateral levelorintheframework ofnegotiations
under Article 23.4oftheTRIPS Agreement.
17. When awinebearing ageographical indication isimported intotheECfromoneWTOMember,
whatprocess isusedbytheECtodetermine whether theparticular geographical indication isrecognized
intheexporting WTOMember? HowdoestheECdetermine whether ornotsuchgeographical indication
isrecognized orprotected inanother WTO Member?
Please explain indetail howCouncil Regulation (EC) 1427/96 of26June1996 isusedto
determine whether ageographical indication isrecognized inanother WTOMember. Asweunderstand,
onecriterion under thisCouncil Regulation iswhether athirdcountry hasimplemented itsobligations
under theTRIPS Agreement. Isitcontemplated under thisprovision thattheECwillmake anindividual
determination onwhether ornotaWTO Member hasadequately implemented TRIPS obligations. If
yes,under whatauthority doestheECsuggest thatitcanunilaterally decide whether aWTO Member
has"implemented" itsTRIPS obligations?
Until now, theprocedure inforce intheEuropean Community isbased oncommunications
ofthird countries totheCommission oftherecognised geographical indications. TheCommission
thenproceeds totaketheappropriate steps toinclude these indications inAnnex IIofCommission
Regulation (EEC) 3201/90.
Thenewprocedure introduced byCouncil Regulation (EC)1427/96 willenterintoforce only
on1September1997andhasnotyetbeenimplemented.TheECwillcommunicatesuchimplementation
totheUS.
Article 1,paragraph 13ofRegulation 1427/96 makes reference totheTRIPS Agreement.
TheECdoesnotintend tomake "determinations" concerning WTO Members 'implementation ofthe
TRIPS Agreement. Thepurpose ofthemodifications introduced byRegulation 1427/96 istoensure
thatwithin theECterritory geographical indications ofwines, whether imported ordomestically
produced, areusedinconformity withtheTRIPS Agreement.
18. Thesecond sentence ofArticle 24.6oftheTRIPS Agreement protects varietal names which
contain terms thatarealsogeographical indications. Inparticular, thissentence states that"Nothing
inthissection" shallrequire aWTO Member toapply theprovisions ofSection 3ofPartIIoftheTRIPS
Agreement toavarietal name inexistence asofacertain date. Under what conditions cansucha
varietal wineenter theEC,provided thecountry oforigin clearly andconspicuously appears onthe
label ofthewine. Under whatconditions canitenter thecountry ofanother WTO Member?IP/Q2/EEC/1
Page15
Thecontinuous useofagrape variety existing intheterritory ofaWTO Member asof
1January 1995andwhich iscontrary toArticle 23oftheTRIPS Agreement issubject tonegotiations
between WTO Members under Article 24.1oftheAgreement.
Intheabsence ofsuchnegotiations, theconditions under which avariety name canbeused
onthelabelofanimported wineareestablished inArticle 30ofCouncil Regulation (EEC) 2392/89.
Under thisprovision, thirdcountries communicate thelistofvarieties anditssynonyms legally used
intheir territory totheCommission which includes them inAnnex IVofCommission
Regulation (EEC) 3201/90, provided thattheydonotcreate confusion with:
- thename ofaspecified region orageographical unitusedtodesignate aquality wine
produced inaspecified region ("psr"), atablewineoranother imported wine;
- thename ofanother vinevariety, genetically different, grown intheCommunity.
Derogations maybedecided, provided theyareinconformity withtheprovisions inthethirdcountry
andconcern avinevariety which iswellknown inthecountry oforigin.
IV. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYJAPAN
1. Please elaborate ondifferences between "well-known trademarks" described inArticle 8(2)(c)
oftheEC'sTrademark Regulation and"reputed trademarks" described inArticle 8(5)oftheEC's
Regulation.
Themeaning of"well-known marks" under Article 8(2)(c) ofCouncil Regulation (EC) 40/94
specially follows Article 6bisoftheParisConvention. TheCommunity trademark system, established
byCouncil Regulation (EC) 40/94, became operational on1April 1996. Todate, theconcept of
"reputation" under Article 8(5)oftheRegulation hasnotbeenapplied inpractice. Furthermore, neither
Article 8(5)oftheRegulation, noranyother relevant Community instrument, contain elements on
theinterpretation of"reputation". Nevertheless, itshould benoted that"reputation" constitutes alower
threshold than"well known".
2. Please explain whether ornot"where theusewithout duecause ofthetrademark applied for
would takeunfair advantage of,orbedetrimental to,thedistinctive character ortherepute oftheearlier
trademark" described inArticle 8(5)oftheEC'sTrademark Regulation isidentical with"provided
thatuseofatrademark inrelation togoods orservices which arenotsimilar tothose inrespect of
which thetrademark isregistered would indicate aconnection between those goods orservices and
theowner oftheregistered trademark andprovided thattheinterests oftheowner oftheregistered
trademarks arelikely tobedamaged bysuchuse"asdescribed inArticle 16.3oftheTRIPS Agreement.
TheECconsiders thatthecriteria forestablishing trademark infringement under Article 8(5)
ofCouncil Regulation (EC)40/94 areinconformity withthose setoutunder Article 16.3oftheTRIPS
Agreement.
3. Please elaborate on"theusewithout duecause" described inArticle 8(5)oftheEC'sTrademark
Regulation bygiving examples, andplease explain whether ornotthetrademark maybeusedoris
registrable when there is"duecause". Ifitisso,please explain itsconsistency withtheprovision
ofArticle 16.3oftheTRIPS Agreement, which makes noreference to"duecause".
TheCommunity trademark system, established byCouncil Regulation (EC) 40/94, became
operational on1April 1996. Todate,Article 8(5)oftheRegulation hasnotbeenapplied inpractice.IP/Q2/EEC/1
Page16
Nevertheless, itshould benoted thatthereference to"usewithout duecause" reflects ageneral principle
oflaw,i.e.a"rule ofreason". Consequently, although theunauthorized useofasign, inprinciple,
constitutes trademark infringement, itmayonthefactsbejustified. Theapplication ofthisprinciple,
embodied inArticle 8(5), implies that,inexceptional cases, theuseofasignwhich isidentical or
similar toaregistered mark fordissimilar goods orservices maybepermissible, evenwhere theother
elements oftrademark infringement arepresent. Itshould bestressed that,asarule,theexception
under theruleofreason willnotapply. Jurisprudence attheleveloftheMember States hasshown
thatadefence based ontheruleofreason hasnever beensuccessful. Inorder tosuccessfully invoke
theruleofreason, some Member Statejurisdictions require thattheuserofthesignmustprove either
thathehasanimperative needtousethesignandthathecannot reasonably beobliged torenounce
onsuchuse,orthatsuchuserproves thathehasarighttousethesign.
4. Please explain differences between "thegenuine use"ofatrademark described inArticles 15
and50oftheEC'sTrademark Regulation and"theuse"ofthetrademark described inArticle 19.1
oftheTRIPS Agreement. Inthecasewhere atrademark isputto"theuse"asstipulated inArticle 19.1
oftheTRIPS Agreement, though notto"thegenuine use"asprovided forintheEC'sRegulation, for
three years afterthelapse oftwoyears ofnon-use, would theregistration ofthesaidtrademark be
cancelled pursuant toArticles 15and50oftheEC'sRegulation? Ifso,please explain itsconsistency
withtheprovision ofArticle 19.1oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Articles 15and50ofCouncil Regulation (EC)40/94 stipulate thatif,within fiveyears following
registration, theproprietor hasnotputtheCommunity trademark togenuine use,theaforementioned
mark shallbethesubject ofsanctions provided forintheRegulation. Inapplying Article 19ofthe
TRIPS Agreement, thecourts orother competent authorities ofWTO Members, willhavetointerpret
theconcept of"use". Ininterpreting thisconcept, theymaywellarrive attheconclusion that,for
example, thesimple advertising ofthetrademark, where theonlyobjective istoprevent cancellation
ofthemark (ontheground offailure touse),doesnotconstitute "use" within themeaning ofArticle 19
oftheTRIPS Agreement. Inviewofthis,thereference to"genuine" useinthesaidArticles ofthe
Regulation constitute anindication astohowtheconcept of"use" mustbeinterpreted under Community
law.
[Follow-up question from Japan]
Theanswer seems toimply thattheECMember States maybeallowed tointerpret theterm
"use" intheirownway. Accordingly, itmayhappen that"genuine use"isinterpreted tobenarrower
than"use". Ifitisthecase, registration maybecancelled onabasis ofnon-"genuine use"while it
stillfallswithin thescope of"use". Please explain howthisisconsistent withArticle 19.1oftheTRIPS
Agreement which doesnotmake anydifference between "use" and"genuine use".
Since theconcept of"genuine use"islaiddown inCommunity law(Articles 15and50ofthe
Council Regulation (EC) 40/94), itisfortheEuropean Court ofJustice togiveafinalandbinding
interpretation ofthatconcept. Auniform application oftheconcept will,therefore, beensured for
thewhole territory oftheEuropean Union. AstheECandMember States haveindicated intheiranswer
toinitial question 4fromJapan, theadjective "genuine" isnotintended toqualify theconcept of"use"
aslaiddown inArticle 19.1oftheTRIPS Agreement, butmerely indicates that,where themark is
onlyusedinanartificial manner, onlywithaviewtoavoid cancellation ofthemark onthebasis of
non-use, suchuseshallnotbeconsidered toconstitute "use" inthesense ofArticle 19.1oftheTRIPS
Agreement.
5. Please identify theprovisions oftheEC'sTrademark Regulation implementing Article 24.5
oftheTRIPS Agreement, which deals withsuchcases asatrademark applied fororregistered ingoodIP/Q2/EEC/1
Page17
faithbefore thedateofapplication oftheTRIPS Agreement orbefore thegeographical indication is
protected initscountry oforigin.
Council Regulation (EC) 40/94 became operational on1April 1996. Thus, noCommunity
trademarks existprior totheentry intoforce oftheWTO Agreement. TheFirstCouncil Directive
ontheapproximation ofthelawsoftheMember States relating totrademarks (89/104/EEC) hasnot
beenmodified following theentry intoforce oftheWTO Agreement. Asaresult, nonewprovisions
havebeenintroduced intotheDirective which would oblige theMember States toprejudice eligibility
for,orthevalidity of,theregistration ofatrademark, ortherighttouseatrademark, onthebasis
thatsuchatrademark isidentical with, orsimilar to,ageographical indication, where suchatrademark
existed prior totheentry intoforce oftheWTO Agreement.
Moreover, Article 40,paragraph 3,second indent ofCouncil Regulation (EEC) 2392/89 (as
amended byCouncil Regulation (EEC) 3897/91) concerning description andpresentation ofwines and
grape musts envisage thattheholder ofawell-known registered brand name forawine oragrape
mustwhich contains wording thatisrelated togeographical indications maycontinue tousethatbrand
name if:
- itcorresponds totheidentity ofitsoriginal holder oroftheoriginal provider ofthe
name; and
- thebrand name wasregistered atleast25years before theofficial recognition ofthe
geographical name inquestion bytheproducer 'sMember Stateandithasactually been
usedwithout interruption.
The same rule applies tosparkling wines (Article 13,paragraph 3ofCouncil
Regulation (EEC) 2333/92).
Asregards geographical indications anddesignations oforigin foragricultural products or
foodstuffs registered under Council Regulation 2081/92/EEC, theprovisions ofArticle 14,
paragraphs 2and3apply withregard totrademarks existing prior totheregistration.
Under Article 14(3), adesignation oforigin orageographical indication shallnotberegistered
where, inlightofthetrademark 'sreputation andrenown andthelength oftimeithasbeenused,
registration isliable tomislead theconsumer astothetrueidentity oftheproduct.
Under Article 14(2), useofatrademark corresponding tooneofthesituations referred toin
Article 13ofRegulation 2081/92 (usurpation, imitation, direct orindirect evocation, etc.)inrelation
toaregistered geographical indication ordesignation oforigin ispermitted under thefollowing
conditions:
- Thetrademark wasregistered ingood faithbefore thedateonwhich application for
registration ofadesignation oforigin orgeographical indication waslodged;
- Itcanbedemonstrated thattheuseofthetrademark could bedoneinconformity with
Community law;
- Itcannot bedemonstrated, atthetimeofregistration ofthetrademark, thatthere are
thefollowing grounds forinvalidity orrevocation asprovided byCouncil
Directive 89/104/EEC ontheapproximation ofthelawsoftheMember States relating
totrademarks, i.e.:IP/Q2/EEC/1
Page18
- thetrademark isexclusively anindication ofgeographical origin
(Article 3(1)(c));
- thetrademark isofsuchanature astodeceive thepublic astothegeographical
origin oftheproduct (Article 3(1)(g));
- asaconsequence oftheusemade ofitbytheproprietor ofthetrademark, or
withhisconsent, thetrademark isliable tomislead thepublic, particularly as
tothegeographical origin oftheproduct (Article 12(2)(b)).
6. Article 46oftheEC'sTrademark Regulation stipulates thatatrademark shallberegistered
foraperiod oftenyears fromthefiling date. Article 9(3)oftheEC'sRegulation, however, stipulates
thattherights conferred byaCommunity trademark shallprevail against thirdparties fromthedate
ofpublication ofregistration ofatrademark. Ifittakes alongperiod oftimefromthefiling dateof
anapplication tothedateofpublication ofregistration ofatrademark, itmayhappen, theoretically,
thatthetermduring which theowner ofthetrademark canexercise theexclusive rightislessthanseven
years. Inthisregard, howistheconsistency withArticle 18oftheTRIPS Agreement ensured?
Article 18oftheTRIPS Agreement requires thatinitial registration ofatrademark shallbe
foratermofnolessthanseven years. Article 46ofCouncil Regulation (EC) 40/94 provides that
Community trademarks shallberegistered foraperiod oftenyears from thedateoffiling ofthe
application. Thisimplies thataCommunity trademark shallindeed beregistered foraperiod often
years, which isevenlonger thantheminimum period ofregistration laiddown bytheTRIPS Agreement.
Asregards theeffective term ofprotection foraCommunity trademark, thesecond sentence of
Article 9(3)oftheRegulation specifies thatreasonable compensation maybeclaimed inrespect of
matters arising afterthedateofthepublication ofaCommunity trademark application, ifsuchmatters
would, afterpublication oftheregistered mark, beprohibited byvirtue ofthatpublication.
[Follow-up question from Japan]
SincetherighttoseeksomecompensationgivenbyArticle9(3)oftheEC'sTrademarkRegulation
isnotconsidered tobeafullright oftrademark conferred intheTRIPS Agreement, thetermoffull
protection mayhappen tobelessthanseven years fromfiling toregistration eventhough the"effective"
termismore thanseven years. Please explain howitisconsistent withArticle 18oftheTRIPS
Agreement.
Article 46,firstsentence, ofCouncil Regulation (EC) 40/94 provides that"Community
trademarks shallberegistered foraperiod oftenyears from thedateoffiling oftheapplication".
Article 18,firstsentence, oftheTRIPS Agreement provides that"Initial registration, andeachrenewal
ofregistration, ofatrademark shallbeforatermofnolessthanseven years". Thus, theECfully
complies withitsobligations under Article 18oftheTRIPS Agreement. Inthisrespect, itshould be
noted thatthelatter Article doesnotrefertoa"term offullprotection", asreferred tobyJapan, but
onlytotheduration ofthetermoftheregistration assuch.
V. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYAUSTRALIA
1. Please explain howyourlawsatisfies therequirements ofArticle 22oftheTRIPS Agreement
inrespect ofgeographical indications.
Council Regulation 2081/92/EEC setsouttheprocedure fortheregistration ofgeographical
indications inrelation toagricultural products andfoodstuffs intheCommunity territory. TheprocedureIP/Q2/EEC/1
Page19
contained inArticles 5,6and7isasfollows:
1. Agroupofproducersmustsubmitadetailedapplicationforregistrationtothecompetent
authority oftheMember State, inaccordance withtheconditions specified inthe
Regulation.
2. Iftheapplication isconsidered tobeinconformity withtheRegulation, itshallbe
referred totheCommunity authorities, whowillverify thattheconditions ofthe
Regulation havebeenformally satisfied andwillpublish theapplication intheOfficial
Journal toallow other parties theopportunity toraiseobjections.
3. Ifanobjection israised, thefinaldecision onregistration istaken bytheCommission
andtheMember States.
TheMember States areresponsible forcontrolling theapplication oftheRegulation. The
protection granted bytheRegulation isexofficio, thatistosaythattheMember States ensure that
eachregistered geographical indication ordesignation oforigin isprotected against anyencroachment
taking place within theEU.
Asfortheprotection ofgeographical indications ofWTO Members, itisnecessary todistinguish
thefollowing situations:
1. Theprotection pursuant toArticle 22oftheTRIPS Agreement, which isguaranteed
bytheMemberStates'applicationofCouncilDirective79/112/EECconcerninglabelling
(prohibition tomislead thepublic). Intheevent ofaproblem relating toageographical
indication ofaWTO Member, theECMember States ensure thepossibility forthe
operators concerned totakelegalaction intheircourts.
2. Theexofficio protection pursuant totheabove-mentioned Regulation 2081/92, for
which either:
- theprocedure followed byCommunity producers asoutlined above mustbe
followed, inaccordance withtheprinciple ofnational treatment; or
- abilateral agreement should beconcluded asenvisaged inArticle 12,when
thesystem ofprotection isequivalent totheCommunity regime.
Allgeographical indications areprotected against misleading advertising intheCommunity
under Council Directive 84/450/EEC relating totheapproximation ofthelaws, regulations and
administrative provisions oftheMember States concerning misleading advertising. Article 3ofthe
Directive provides that,indetermining whether advertising ismisleading, account shallbetaken in
particular ofanyinformation itcontains concerning thecharacteristics ofgoods orservices suchas
[...]geographical orcommercial origin. According toArticle 4ofthisDirective, Member States ensure
thatadequate andeffective means existforthecontrol ofmisleading advertising.
2. Please describe anyprovisions inyourlawwhich address therequirements ofArticle 23of
theTRIPS Agreement.
Textoftheanswer identical tothereplytoquestion 4fromNewZealand under A,asreproduced
above.IP/Q2/EEC/1
Page20
3. Please explain howyourlegislation dealswiththeissueofpre-existing trademark rights vis-à-vis
theprotection ofgeographical indications. Arethere anyinstances ofpermitted dualuseofthesame
matter asatrademark andasageographical indication? Please provide details ofanysuchinstances.
Council Regulation (EC) 40/94 became operational on1April 1996. Thus, noCommunity
trademarks existprior totheentry intoforce oftheWTO Agreement.
Article64(2)ofthesaidRegulationprovidesthat,inderogationfromtheprinciplethattrademarks
which consist exclusively ofsignsorindications which mayserve, intrade, todesignate thegeographical
origin ofthegoods orofrendering oftheservice, shallnotberegistered (Article 7(1)(c)), suchmarks
mayconstitute Community collective marks. Thus, under these circumstances, dualuseofthesame
matter asatrademark andasageographical indication ispermitted. Itshould benoted, however,
thattheholder ofsuchaCommunity collective mark cannot invoke hisexclusive rightagainst athird
party whoisentitled touseageographical name.
Moreover, Article 40,paragraph 3,second indent ofCouncil Regulation (EEC) 2392/89 (as
amended byCouncil Regulation (EEC) 3897/91) concerning description andpresentation ofwines and
grape musts envisages thattheholder ofawell-known registered brand name forawineoragrape
mustwhich contains wording thatisrelated togeographical indications maycontinue tousethatbrand
name if:
- itcorresponds totheidentity ofitsoriginal holder oroftheprovider ofthename; and
- thebrand name wasregistered atleast25years before theofficial recognition ofthe
geographical name inquestion bytheproducer 'sMember Stateandithasactually been
usedwithout interruption.
The same rule applies tosparkling wines (Article 13,paragraph 3ofCouncil
Regulation (EEC) 2333/92).
Asregards geographical indications anddesignations oforigin foragricultural products or
foodstuffs, registered under Council Regulation 2081/92/EEC, theprovisions ofArticle 14,
paragraphs 2and3apply withregard totrademarks existing prior totheregistration.
Under Article 14(3), adesignation oforigin orageographical indication shallnotberegistered
where, inlightofthetrademark 'sreputation andrenown andthelength oftimeithasbeenused,
registration isliable tomislead theconsumer astothetrueidentity oftheproduct.
Under Article 14(2), useofatrademark corresponding tooneofthesituations referred toin
Article 13ofRegulation 2081/92 (usurpation, imitation, direct orindirect evocation, etc.) inrelation
toaregistered geographical indication ordesignation oforigin, ispermitted under thefollowing
conditions:
- Thetrademark wasregistered ingood faithbefore thedateonwhich application for
registration ofadesignation oforigin orgeographical indication waslodged;
- Itcanbedemonstrated thattheuseofthetrademark could bedoneinconformity with
Community law;IP/Q2/EEC/1
Page21
- Itcannot bedemonstrated, atthetimeofregistration ofthetrademark, thatthere are
thefollowing grounds forinvalidity orrevocation asprovided bytheFirstCouncil
Directive ontheapproximation ofthelawsoftheMember States relating totrademarks
(89/104/EEC), i.e:
- thetrademark isexclusively anindication ofgeographical origin
(Article 3(1)(c));
- thetrademark isofsuchanature astodeceive thepublic astothegeographical
origin oftheproduct (Article 3(1)(g));
- asaconsequence oftheusemade ofitbytheproprietor ofthetrademark, or
withhisconsent, thetrademark isliable tomislead thepublic, particularly as
tothegeographical origin oftheproduct (Article 12(2)(b)).
4. Doyouprotect textile designs asrequired under Article 25oftheTRIPS Agreement byindustrial
design law,copyright law,suigeneris legislation oracombination ofthese?
Forthetimebeing, design protection isnotsubject toCommunity-wide legislation and,
consequently, users ofindustrial designs, including textile designs, mustrelyonprotection atthelevel
oftheMember States. Suchprotection isavailable under national design law,national copyright law
orundernationalsuigenerislegislation.TheCommissionproposalsforaDirectiveontheharmonization
ofthelawsoftheMember States ontheprotection ofdesigns andforaRegulation ontheCommunity
Design arepending before theCouncil andtheEuropean Parliament.
5. Ifitisarequirement ofyourtrademark lawthatasignbe"visually perceptive", howisthis
requirement applied?
PursuanttoArticle4ofCouncilRegulation(EC)40/94,asignofwhichaCommunitytrademark
mayexistmustbecapable ofbeing represented graphically. Inthisrespect, itshould benoted that
themark forwhich registration asaCommunity trademark issought must inprinciple, where the
applicant doesnotwishtoclaim anyspecial graphic feature orcolour, bereproduced innormal script
or,inother cases, must bereproduced onaseparate sheet ofpaper.
6. Ifyourtrademark legislation permits theregistration ofsounds andsmells, howaresuchsigns
received intheTrademarks Office andentered intheTrademarks Register?
Council Regulation (EC) 40/94 doesnotexplicitly refertothepossibility toregister sounds
andsmells; neither doesitruleoutsuchpossibility. Inthisrespect, itshould benoted thatsuchsigns,
inorder toqualify forregistration asaCommunity trademark, should becapable ofbeing represented
graphically andofdistinguishing thegoods andservices ofoneundertaking from those ofother
undertakings. Inthisrespect, theanswer toquestion 5fromAustralia above applies mutatis mutandis .
7. Howdoesyourlegislation meettherequirements ofArticle 6bisoftheParis Convention, as
expressed inArticle 16oftheTRIPS Agreement, concerning well-known trademarks. What criteria
areapplied indetermining whatconstitutes awell-known trademark?
Thereference to"well-known marks" under Council Regulation (EC)40/94 specially follows
Article6bisoftheParisConvention.TheCommunitytrademarksystem,establishedbythatRegulation,
became operational on1April 1996. Todate, theconcept of"well known" hasnotbeenapplied in
practice.Further,neithertheRegulation,noranyotherrelevantCommunityinstrument,containelements
ontheinterpretation of"well known". Nevertheless, itshould benoted thatArticle 16.2oftheTRIPSIP/Q2/EEC/1
Page22
Agreement contains some elements which should betaken intoaccount indetermining whether a
trademark iswellknown.
Regulation 40/94 meets withArticle 16.2oftheTRIPS Agreement byproviding thatholders
ofwell-known marks, inthesense ofArticle 6bisoftheParisConvention, mayoppose totheregistration
of,orinvalidate, younger Community trademarks forsimilar goods andservices (Articles 8(2)(c),
9and52(1)).
Regulation 40/94 meets withArticle 16.3 oftheTRIPS Agreement byproviding, inits
Article 8(5),thatholders ofearlier marks, asdefined inArticle 8(2)ofthatRegulation (thusincluding
the"6bis"marks), mayoppose totheregistration ofayounger trademark asaCommunity trademark
fordissimilar goods orservices forwhich themark hasbeenregistered, provided thattheearlier mark
hasareputation. Since theconcept of"reputation" constitutes alower threshold thantheconcept of
"well-known", theCommunity hascomplied withitsobligations under Article 16.3oftheTRIPS
Agreement.
VI. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYINDIA
1. How farisArticle 12ofCouncil Regulation 2081/92/EEC incompliance withtheTRIPS
Agreement? Please particularly explain how:
(i) the"guarantees" under Article 4,asrequired under Article 12(1), takeintoaccount
geographical indications where thereputation ofthegoodiscritically attributable to
itsgeographical origin?
(ii) having inspection arrangements equivalent toArticle 10canbearequirement for
non-Members oftheEC,when thisisnotarequirement under theTRIPS Agreement?
(iii) thereciprocity provision inArticle 1(3rdindent) iscompatible withArticle 3ofthe
TRIPS Agreement, especially forcountries which arestillavailing oftransition periods
under Article 65.2ofthatAgreement?
(i) Inaccordance withArticle 22oftheTRIPS Agreement, reputation assuchisasufficient element
toobtain theprotection asgeographical indication under Article 2(2)(b) of
Regulation 2081/92/EEC.
(ii) Itisimportant tostress that, ingeneral, conditions provided inArticle 12of
Regulation 2081/92/EEC areonlyrequired when abilateral agreement isconcluded between
theECandaWTO Member. Thismeans thatitonlyoccurs when twoparties voluntarily
wishhigher levelofprotection ("exofficio") thanthisprovided under theTRIPS Agreement.
So,thisisnotacompulsory condition butanother option thatcanbeusedwhen systems are
equivalent, inparticular conditions under Article 4(specifications) andArticle 10(inspection).
(iii) Seeanswer toquestion 1(ii).
[Follow-up questions from India]
(a) While thedefinition ofgeographical indications under Article 2(2)(b) ofCouncil
Regulation 2081/92/EEC includes products originating inaregion, specific place orcountry and
possessing, inter alia,reputation, Article 4imposes therequirement ofcomplying withaproduct
specificationwhichincludesaminimumofeightspecificconditionsandageneralconditionencompassingIP/Q2/EEC/1
Page23
anyrequirementslaiddownbyCommunityand/ornationalprovisions.Itisnotclearwhyageographical
indication based onreputation alone should havetocomply withsuchspecifications, especially those
inArticle 4(2)(b) and(e).Should geographical indications fromthirdcountries based onreputation
alone besubject tosuchconditions, especially when under Article 12itappears thattheregistration
willhavetobeprocessed through thethird country government, which should beasufficient check
onthevalidity oftheclaim?
(b) How would Article 10ofCouncil Regulation 2081/92/EEC beapplied tothird countries,
especially inregard tojudging the"adequate guarantees ofobjectivity andimpartiality" asrequired
under 10(3)? Would itsatisfy theECifthethirdcountry government wastocertify allconditions given
inArticle 10?Further, donottheconditions inArticle 10constitute anunjustifiable discrimination,
specially forthedeveloping countries?
(c) Protection forregistered names isdefined under Article 13ofCouncil Regulation 2081/92/EEC.
Thisprotection isanadvantage granted bytheECtoitsnationals whomeettherequirements ofArticle 4
andArticle 10.Insuchacase, doesnotArticle 3oftheTRIPS Agreement require theECtoaccord
treatment nolessfavourable tothenationals ofother WTO Members?
(d) Similarly, when athirdcountry which isaMember oftheWTO avails itselfoftheadvantage
ofregistration, doesnotArticle 4oftheTRIPS Agreement require theECtoaccord thesameadvantage
immediately andunconditionally tothenationals ofallother WTO Members?
Asapreliminary remark, theCommunity would liketounderline thattheprotection of
geographical indications foreseen inArticle 22.2oftheTRIPS Agreement isprovided forinCouncil
Directive 79/112/EEC ontheapproximation ofthelegislation oftheMember States onfoodlabelling
andDirective 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising. Article 2ofDirective 79/112/EEC
provides thatlabelling shallnotbeofsuchanature astomislead theconsumer, namely ontheorigin
orsource oftheproduct. Article 3foresees theplace oforigin orsource asacompulsory indication
onthelabelling offoodproducts, where theabsence ofsuchindication could belikely tomislead the
consumer astothetrueplace oforigin orsource ofthefood. Article 2ofRegulation 84/450/EEC
provides foradefinition ofmisleading advertising which mayresult inunfair competition byreason
ofitsdeceptive nature. Article 3considers, inparticular, anyinformation itcontains concerning
geographicalorcommercialoriginasrelevantcriterionindeterminingwhetheradvertisingismisleading.
Article4dealswiththelegalmeansMemberStatesshallprovideforthecontrolofmisleadingadvertising
intheinterest ofconsumers aswellascompetitors andthegeneral public.
Theprotection foreseen bythese provisions under Community lawandMember States 'law
isapplicable toanyWTO Member citizen without discrimination.
(a) Ontheonehand, Council Regulation 2081/92/EEC provides for:
(i) the"reputation" which isattributable tothename (geographical origin)
(Article 2);and
(ii) theproduct (which iscovered bythegeographical name) which complies with
aspecification (Article 4).
Thismeans thattheRegulation hasestablished adifference between thedesignation andthe
product. Bothconditions arecumulative.IP/Q2/EEC/1
Page24
Ontheother hand, tocomply withaspecification, itisimportant toguarantee acontinuity
andhomogeneity oftheproduct 'scharacteristics which arenecessary asareference forthe
inspection bodies. Thisisessential alsofortheconsumer.
Asamatter offact,ageographical indication requires anyway thattheproduct which iscovered
presents adefined description. Ifthese conditions must becomplied withbytheproducers
established intheECtoobtain aprotected designation oforigin (PDO) orprotected geographical
indication (PGI), theymustalsobecomplied withbythethirdcountry nationals, should they
wishtoobtain thesame protection.
(b) Theinspection oftheconformity fortheproducts whose geographical name hasbeenregistered
asaprotected designation oforigin (PDO) oraprotected geographical indication (PGI) is
essential toensure thecredibility ofthesystem fortheconsumers. Thisisanessential element
oftheRegulation. Inorder toobtain thesame protection (Article 13oftheRegulation), if
itmustbecomplied withbytheproducers established intheEC,itmustalsobecomplied with
bythethirdcountry nationals, toavoid discrimination.
(c) Article 12ofCouncil Regulation 2081/92/EEC provides forthesame protection inrespect
ofproducts from thirdcountries which meetthose requirements. Therefore, nationals from
other WTO Members areafforded treatment "nolessfavourable" thanCommunity nationals,
asrequired byArticle 3oftheTRIPS Agreement.
(d) Under Council Regulation 2081/92/EEC, theadvantage ofregistration isavailable tothe
nationals ofallWTO Members without any distinction. Accordingly, Council
Regulation 2081/92/EEC isfullyconsistent withtherequirements ofArticle 4oftheTRIPS
Agreement.
2. Please provide thetextsofArticle 43oftheTreaty establishing theEECandAnnex IIofthat
Treaty aswellasAnnexes IandIIofCouncil Regulation 2081/92/EEC .
Thetextsprovided bytheECarecontained intheAnnex tothepresent document, except
AnnexesIandIIofCouncilRegulation2081/92/EEC,whichcanbefoundindocumentIP/N/1/EEC/G/1,
aspartofthetextoftheCouncil Regulation 2081/92/EEC thattheECnotified totheTRIPS Council
under Article 63.2oftheAgreement.
3. AreECRegulations directly applicable lawinallMember States? Which aretheexceptions
andwhatsteps havethese Member States taken toapply therelevant ECRegulations?
Regulations (ex.Regulation 2081/92/EEC) aredirectly applicable lawinallMember States;
thismeans thatnosupplementary steps (ex.transposition bynational law)arenecessary toapply
Regulations.
[Follow-up question from India]
Even while Council Regulation 2081/92/EEC isdirectly applicable lawinMember States,
Germany hasincorporated thisinitsdomestic law.Under Chapter 1ofPart6oftheGerman Trademark
LawofApril 1996, Protection ofIndications ofGeographic Origin isdefined, while under Chapter 2
Protection ofGeographical Indications andDesignations ofOrigin under Council Regulation
2081/92/EEC isincorporated. Please clarify whether applications inGermany fromthirdcountries
whoareWTOMembersfortheprotectionofgeographicalindicationswillbeconsideredunderChapter1
orChapter 2ofboth? Further, ifprotection issought onlyforGermany, isthere arequirement to
register thegeographical indication ornot?IP/Q2/EEC/1
Page25
Please seethefollowing answer from theGerman authorities.
"InGermany, twodifferent mechanisms fortheprotection ofgeographical indications exist:
- EC-wide protection under Council Regulation 2081/92/EEC, according towhich
designations oforigin andgeographical indications foragricultural products and
foodstuffs enjoy "absolute" protection (Article 13)oncetheyareregistered; and
- protection against misleading useofageographical indication.
With regard toprotection under Regulation 2081/92/EEC, Part6,Chapter 2oftheGerman
Trademark Law6contains provisions dealing withpurely procedural matters. Thematerial
prerequisites forprotection arecontained intheRegulation itself, which isdirectly applicable
inGermany. Article 12ofthisRegulation stipulates under whatcircumstances geographical
indications ordesignations oforigin from non-EC countries canbeprotected.
Apart fromthisEC-wide protection, nosystem ofregistration ofgeographical indications exists
inGermany. Nevertheless, German lawprohibits anyuseofageographical indication that
isliable tomislead thepublic inGermany astothetrueorigin oftheproduct orservice.
Section 127oftheGerman Trademark Lawstipulates thatgeographical indications maynot
beusedforgoods orservices notoriginating intheareaindicated, ifthere isadanger ofthe
German public being misled astothegeographical origin oftheproduct. Thisprovision is
supplemented bySection 3oftheUnfair Competition Act("Gesetz gegen denunlauteren
Wettbewerb")7andSection 17(1), number 5oftheActonfoodstuffs andarticles ofdaily use
("Lebensmittel- undBedarfsgegenständegesetz"). Bothforbid misleading designations. All
these provisions arealsoapplicable togeographical indications which designate aplace oran
areaoutside Germany. They donotrequire anyregistration ofthegeographical indication
inGermany."
6Seedocument IP/N/1/DEU/T/1
7Seedocument IP/N/1/DEU/U/1