RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/Q2/CZE/1
21January 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-0205)
Original: English Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
REVIEW OFLEGISLATION ONTRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATIONS AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS
Czech Republic1
Thepresent document reproduces theintroductory statement made bythedelegation ofthe
CzechRepublicinthereviewoflegislationontrademarks,geographicalindicationsandindustrialdesigns
attheCouncil 'smeeting of11-15 November 19962,thequestions puttoitandtheresponses given.
_______________
I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
Ourcountry isamember StateoftheParisConvention fortheProtection ofIndustrial Property
since 1919, oftheMadrid Agreement Concerning theInternational Registration ofMarks since 1919,
oftheMadrid Agreement fortheRepression ofFalse orDeceptive Indications ofSource onGoods
since 1921 andoftheLisbon Agreement fortheProtection ofAppellations ofOrigin andtheir
International Registration since1966. ItisalsoaContracting Party totheNiceAgreement Concerning
theInternational Classification ofGoods andServices forthePurposes oftheRegistration ofMarks
andtotheLocarno Agreement Establishing anInternational Classification forIndustrial Designs.
Thisyear, theCzech Republic hasbecome amember StateoftheTrademark LawTreaty and
theProtocol totheMadrid Agreement Concerning theInternational Registration ofMarks.
TheCzech Republic made itsnotification without prejudice totheprovisions ofparagraph 3
ofArticle 65allowing thedelay offouryears inimplementing theTRIPS Agreement forcountries
intransition toamarket economy. TheCzech Republic holds theviewthatitsnational legislation
doesnotrequire thepostponed application oftherespective TRIPS provisions.
ThenewActonTrademarks contained indocument IP/N/1/CZE/T/1 iseffective inthe
Czech Republic since 1October 1995. Ittakes intoaccount ourTRIPS obligations andisbased on
theECCouncil Directive inthisfield.3Byadopting thislaw,thelegislative reform oftheCzech
industrial property system hasbeensuccessfully completed. TheActontheProtection ofAppellations
1Asregards lawsandregulations relevant totheareas under review asnotified bytheCzech Republic under
Article63.2oftheAgreemen treferenceismadetodocumentsIP/N/1/CZE/1,IP/N/1/CZE/T/1,IP/N/1/CZE/G/1
andIP/N/1/CZE/I/1-2.
2Theminutes ofthemeeting have been circulated indocument IP/C/M/11.
3Document IP/N/1/EEC/T/1.IP/Q2/CZE/1
Page2
ofOrigin ofProducts iscontained indocument IP/N/1/CZE/G/1. TheActonInventions, Industrial
Designs andRationalization Proposals which contains thelegalregulation ofindustrial design protection
canbefound indocument IP/N/1/CZE/I/1. Iwould liketorecall thattheCzech Republic hasalso
submittedinwritingthedescriptionofotherlawsandregulationsrelatingtoindustrialpropertyprotection
(ascontained indocument IP/N/1/CZE/1).
Inouropinion, thementioned Czech lawsareconsistent withtheTRIPS Agreement inthe
areaoftrademarks, geographical indications andindustrial designs. They alsoprovide ahigher level
ofprotection thanstipulated bytheTRIPS Agreement.
II. REPLY TOTHE GENERAL QUESTION CONCERNING PRIORITY RIGHTS4
Doesyourcountry recognize arightofpriority onthebasisofanearlier trademark application
filedinanyother WTO Member byanational ofaWTO Member?
TheCzech Republic shallrecognize aright ofpriority onthebasis ofanearlier trademark
application filedinanother WTO Member byanational ofaWTO Member onthebasisofArticle 6,
paragraph 2oftheCzech ActonTrademarks, No.137,which isinforce since 1October 1995 and
onthebasis ofitsWTO Membership.
III. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYTHE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND ITS
MEMBER STATES
1. Could theCzech Republic explain howthedefinition ofappellation oforigin included inits
legislation fulfils thecriteria setoutinArticle 22.1oftheTRIPS Agreement?
According toprovisions of§1oftheCzech LawNo.159/1973 Coll. ofL.,onProtection of
Appellations ofOrigin ofProducts, appellation oforigin ofproducts means ageographical name of
country, region orlocality which hascome tobegenerally known todesignate aproduct originating
therein thequality andcharacteristics ofwhich aredueexclusively oressentially tothegeographical
environment, including natural orhuman factors. Thisdefinition complies withcriteria stated in
Article 22.1oftheTRIPS Agreement, because itcontains identical conceptual characters. Inboth
cases itisanindication which shallbearthename ofacountry oritsregion orlocality which serves
asanindication ofaproduct originating inthisregion, locality orcountry andwhich ischaracterized
byfeatures, quality, reputation orother characteristics which areessentially attributable tothis
geographical origin. TheCzech definition specifies inmore detail thisfactwhen itexplicitly refers
tohuman andnatural factors.
2. Could theGovernment oftheCzech Republic clarify whether itslegislation foresees additional
protection forgeographical indications forwines andspirits (Article 23oftheTRIPS Agreement)?
Ifyes,please explain.
PresentlegislationoftheCzechRepublicenablestoensureadditionalprotectionforgeographical
indications forwines andspirits according toArticle 23oftheTRIPS Agreement. Thebasisforsuch
protection isprovided bytheLawonProtection ofAppellations ofOrigin ofProducts (theLaw
No.159/1973 Coll. ofL.)andanewCzech Trademark Law(theLawNo.137/1995 Coll. ofL.).
4Atthemeeting oftheTRIPS Council of11-15 November 1996, Members agreed torespond tothisquestion
inthecontext ofthepresent review (document IP/C/M/11, paragraph 43).IP/Q2/CZE/1
Page3
According totheLawonProtection ofAppellations ofOrigin ofProducts thisprotection isprovided
intheformofregistration ofappellation oforigin intotheregister oftheIndustrial Property Office.
Nobody isallowed tomisuse theregistered appellation oforigin, inparticular toappropriate itorto
imitate it,evenifthetrueorigin ofaproduct isindicated orevenifappellation isusedintranslated
orinaltered form, ifdespite thedifference there isariskofconfusion, orevenifitisaccompanied
byexpressions suchas"kind", "type", "imitation", etc.Theregistered appellation oforigin maynot
beusedasthegeneric name ofaproduct (§4). Only theregistered holder oftherights tousean
appellation oforigin mayusetheregistered appellation oforigin. Theregistered holder ofrights to
useanappellation oforigin candemand fromarespective court body thatbreach ofhisrights should
beprohibited andthatdefective status should beremoved. ThevalidCzech Trademark Lawexcludes
fromregistration asignwhich consists exclusively ofindications ofgeographical origin ofproducts.
Inaddition, indications which mayconfuse thepublic about geographical origin ofproducts orservices
areexcluded fromtheregistration. Thelawfurther enables toexclude fromregistration allindications
whoseutilizationwouldbecontrarytothecommitmentsarisingfortheCzechRepublicfrominternational
agreements. According toprovision of§3,paragraph 1oftheCzech law,theOffice shallnotregister
theindication identical withatrademark which isapplied orregistered foranother owner foridentical
orsimilar goods orservices withprevious rightofpriority, event. which contains elements ofapplied
indication orregistered trademark which could leadtoconfusion. TheOffice shallcancel thetrademark
from theperson 'sproposal orexofficio thatthetrademark wasregistered inconflict withthislaw.
TheCzech Republic provides legalmeans preventing theuseofthegeographical indication identifying
wines orspirits forwines andspirits which donotcome from thelocality stated inarespective
geographical indication aswellasthrough protection against unfair competition, byspecial factual basis
ofdeceptive labelling ofgoods (§46oftheLawNo.513/1991 Coll. ofL.).
3. Does thelawoftheCzech Republic provide fortheprotection oftextile designs, including
fashion? Ifyes,onwhatlegal basis andunder which conditions?
Protection oftextile designs intheCzech Republic isensured byvalid legal regulation of
industrial designs which iscontained inthesecond partin§§36-62 oftheLawNo.527/1990 Coll.
ofL.,onInventions, Industrial Designs andRationalization Proposals. Protection oftextile designs
isprovided under thesame conditions which apply toprotection ofallindustrial designs. Thelaw
hasnospecial provisions relating exclusively totextile designs. Theindustrial design must satisfy
thecondition ofnovelty andindustrial applicability. Anapplied industrial design issubmitted to
examination bytheIndustrial Property Office. Theprotection shallresult from theregistration of
industrial design intheregister ofindustrial designs attheIndustrial Property Office. TheOffice shall
publish anotice oftheregistration ofanindustrial design intheOfficial Bulletin. Thepossibility to
obtain protection oftextile design asanother appearance ofaproduct isnottiedtoanyconditions which
would burden theapplicant. Ifatextile design isanauthor 'swork, itisalsounder protection according
tocopyright intheCzech Republic.
4. Theduration ofprotection under theCzech lawamounts tofiveyears (paragraph 54ofAct
No.527/1990 Coll. onInventions). Thisperiod maybeextended bytheIntellectual Property Office,
based ontherequest oftheowner ofanindustrial design, foramaximum oftwofive-year periods.
- AretheCzech authorities aware thatthefive-year extension provision would appear
tobeconsistent withArticle 26.3oftheTRIPS Agreement onlyiftheextension is
automatically granted upon application oftherightholder?
- What istheexact meaning of"may be"?
- Arethere anyreasons forrejection ofsuchanextension?IP/Q2/CZE/1
Page4
Thevalid legalregulation ofindustrial designs intheCzech Republic enables theindustrial
design owner togradually obtain available protection ofindustrial design forupto15years, i.e.five
years more thanrequired byArticle 26.3oftheTRIPS Agreement. TheIndustrial Property Office
shallautomatically extend theoriginal five-year period ofindustrial design registration ifsorequested
bytheowner. TheOffice cannot refuse thisextension andthere arenoreasons forrefusal ofsuch
extension. Czech bodies arenotfullyconvinced thatthisregulation isindiscrepancy withthestated
Article oftheTRIPS Agreement. Onthecontrary, theysuppose thatthisregulation iswider than
Article 26.3oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Authentic Czech wording ofthestated provision of§54,paragraph 2oftheLawNo.527/1990
Coll. ofL.corresponds toexpression "shall be"instead of"may be".
IV. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYTHE UNITED STATES
General Observation
Since 1October 1995 anewLawonTrademarks iseffective intheCzech Republic (theLaw
No.137/1995 coll.ofL.)which already takesintoaccount thecommitments arising fromtheAgreement
onTrade-Related Aspects ofIntellectual Property Rights. Thisisimportant particularly because the
majority ofquestions from theAmerican siderefers toorcomes from theprevious legalregulation
(theLawNo.174/1988 Coll. ofL.)which wasalready cancelled andisnotrelevant fortheCzech
Republic. Thus, themajority ofquestions relating totrademarks isprecluded bythepresently valid
regulation asgiven from thefollowing answers:
1. Section 2oftheGeneral Provisions liststhesigns thatcanconstitute atrademark. Thislist
doesnotinclude personal names, numerals, letters orcolours. Please explain howSection 2ofthe
General Provisions complies withTRIPS Article 15.1.
Thesubject matter oftrademarks protection intheCzech Republic ispositively defined inthe
samewayasinArticle 15.1oftheTRIPS Agreement, i.e.itincludes allgraphically illustratable signs
thatconsist ofwords (including personal names), letters, numerals, drawings (including combinations
ofcolours) ortheshape ofproduct oritspackaging, oracombination thereof, intending todistinguish
goods orservices ofvarious undertakings.
2. TRIPS Article 15.3requires WTO Members topermit thefiling ofanapplication toregister
atrademark prior toactual useofthemark, andfurther specifies thatsuchapplications cannot be
refused solely ontheground thattheintended usehasnotoccurred prior tothree years fromthedate
ofapplication. Please explain howCzech lawcomplies withthisprovision oftheTRIPS Agreement.
TheCzech Republic didnotsetanycondition ofprevious useofthemark prior tofiling of
anapplication. Filing ofanapplication isnottiedtothisfactandtherefore itcannot berefused on
thegrounds thatitdidnotoccur bothprior tofiling ofanapplication andalsoatanytimethereafter.
Thevalid legalregulation oftheCzech Republic isfullyinharmony withArticle 15.3oftheTRIPS
Agreement. Itistrue,however, thatnon-use ofthealready registered trademark canbetheground
foritscancellation unless theregistered trademark wasusedintheCzech Republic fortheperiod of
atleastfiveyears priortothebeginning ofcancellation proceedings andunless itsowner justifies such
non-use. However, thisquestion isnotrelevant forArticle 15.3oftheTRIPS Agreement.
3. Please explain whether thenature ofgoods orservices towhich atrademark istobeapplied
canserve asanobstacle totheregistration ofthemark under thelawoftheCzech Republic. Ifso,
please identify andexplain thesubject matter excluded under thisauthority, therelative provisionsIP/Q2/CZE/1
Page5
oftheCzech lawthatserve asabasis forthese exclusions, andhowthispractice complies withTRIPS
Article 15.4.
Thevalidtrademark lawoftheCzech Republic doesnotknow anyobstacle totheregistration
ofthetrademark intotheregister onthegrounds ofthenature ofgoods orservices towhich atrademark
istobeapplied. Thus, trademark protection isfullyindependent onwhether theproduct towhich
theprotection applies canorcannot bethesubject matter ofbusiness.
4. Section 13(1) oftheCzech lawprovides foratenyeartermfortrademarks beginning onthe
filing dateoftheapplication, notfromthedatetheregistration isgranted. Please explain howthis
provision complies withtheobligation ofTRIPS Article 18thatWTO Members provide aminimum
seven yeartermofprotection forregistered trademarks.
Thetermofprotection forregistered trademarks intheCzech Republic amounts to10years
from thefiling dateoftheapplication. Inevery case, thetermofprotection intheCzech Republic
willbelonger thanstated byArticle 18oftheTRIPS Agreement, evenifthetermstated herein started
torunfromthedateofatrademark registration which isnotexplicitly given inArticle 18oftheTRIPS
Agreement.
5. Please explain whether theowner ofaregistered trademark hastheexclusive righttoprevent
thirdparties fromusing identical orsimilar signs onsimilar goods orservices asrequired byTRIPS
Article 16.1.
Theowner ofatrademark registered intheCzech Republic candemand atacourtthateverybody
should beprevented from using identical orsimilar signs foridentical orsimilar goods orservices
andthatarticles identified inthemanner which infringes hisrights should bewithdrawn fromthemarket.
Theexclusive rightofthetrademark owner toprevent allthirdparties frominfringement ofhisrights
isregulated alsobyother provisions ofthepresently valid law,especially in§§13, 14and15ofthe
LawNo.137/1995 Coll. ofL.
6. Please explain whether thetrademark lawoftheCzech Republic establishes apresumption
oflikelihood ofconfusion inthedetermination ofconfusing similarity incases where identical marks
areusedonidentical goods, asrequired byTRIPS Article 16.1. Ifso,please identify andexplain the
legal basis forthispresumption.
Thetrademark owner 'srighttoprevent allthirdparties formusing identical orsimilar signs
foridentical orsimilar products inbusiness activity isunderstood intheCzech Republic asabsolute
andisdefined more widely thanrequired byArticle 16.1oftheTRIPS Agreement. Thetrademark
owner hasalways thisrightregardless whether suchuseshould result inlikelihood ofconfusion. For
these reasons thevalid legal regulations oftheCzech Republic donotcontain thepresumption of
likelihood ofconfusion.
7. Please explain:
- thestandard usedintheCzech Republic fordetermining whether amark is“well
known ”;
- howregistered andunregistered well-known marks areprotected under thetrademark
lawoftheCzech Republic; andIP/Q2/CZE/1
Page6
- whether knowledge within therelevant sector ofthepublic asaresult ofpromotion
ofthemarkisconsidered intheanalysis leading toadetermination thatamarkiswell
known.
Withrespect toeachaspect ofthisquestion, please explain howthestandards orpractices comply
withTRIPS Articles 16.2and16.3.
ThestandardusedintheCzechRepublicfordeterminationwhetheramarkiswellknownfollows
fromArticle 6bisoftheParisConvention fortheProtection ofIndustrial Property andfromtrademark
practices andthecourt judicature before 1938. Consideration ofthecommon trademark knowledge
intheCzech Republic depends onitsgoodreputation andnotion within consumers andentrepreneurial
public. Here, thefactors ofpublication intensity andsignevaluation aredecisive. TheCzech Republic
doesnotdispose ofanewer judicature from decision-making practice ofcourts yet,regarding the
short-time influence ofthelaw;nevertheless, wecannot expect thattheevaluation ofcommon trademark
knowledge willmake special difficulties. Onthecontrary, wecanexpect, regarding thecontinuity
oflegalculture, thatthecourt practice willkeepasimilar standard oftheEuropean continental law.
Astotheadministrative decision-making practices, theexperience from administrative proceedings
accordingtothepreviousregulationisused,whentheregistrationauthoritypronouncedso-calledfamous
trademark byadministrative verdict which wasrecorded intheregister. Theowner ofawell-known
mark(bothregistered andunregistered) hastherighttofileoppositions against registration oftrademarks
withalaterrightofpriority intotheregister. Inaddition totherights granted toowners ofregistered
trademarks, theowner ofawell-known trademark hastherighttoprohibit theuseofhistrademark
oraconfusing signregardless oftheidentity orsimilarity ofproducts orservices iftheuseofthe
well-known trademark onotherproducts orservices indicates arelation between suchidentified products
orservices andtheowner ofthewell-known trademark, andfurther torequire cancellation ofsuch
atrademark which would illegally benefit from distinguishing competence orgood reputation ofa
well-known trademark, orifitweretoitsprejudice, regardless ofwhether thetrademark concerned
wasregistered foridentical orsimilar products orservices. Also, inacasewhere theuseofawell-known
trademark oraconfusing signistheconduct ofunfair competition bythecourt decision, theowner
ofawell-known trademark oraconfusing signistheconduct ofunfair competition bythecourtdecision,
theowner ofwell-known trademark canrequire thecancellation ofacolliding trademark. Themanner
howthetrademark becomes wellknown isnotstated bylaw. Todate, examination practice ofthe
Industrial Property Office indicates thatthetrademark promotion isoneofthemethods howatrademark
becomes wellknown. Based ontheabove-mentioned, itisevident thatthewell-known trademark in
theCzech Republic isgiven protection notonlywithin thescope ofArticles 16.2and16.3oftheTRIPS
Agreement, butwithregard toeventual opposition andaspecial reason forcancellation evenabove
thisframework.
8. Section 15(4) oftheCzech lawpermits atrademark owner toaskthecustoms authorities to
withhold theentryofgoods bearing infringing marks. Please explain howthelawoftheCzech Republic
implements andapplies theprovisions regarding border measures found inTRIPS Articles 51to60
withregard tosuchgoods bearing infringing trademarks.
Upon request ofatrademark owner thecustoms authorities intheCzech Republic shallnot
release thegoods having abusiness nature intofreecirculation iftheirindication infringes therights
ofatrademark owner. So,thecustoms authorities areentitled bythetrademark lawtotakepublic
lawmeasures before theymeritorily findoutthatthebusiness goods arereally counterfeit. Atpresent
anewlawisbeing prepared intheCzech Republic which willregulate border measures inacomplex
wayinaccordance withArticles 51-60 oftheTRIPS Agreement. Itissupposed thatthelawonthe
prohibitionofentryofcounterfeitandpiracygoodsintofreecirculationinthesystemofexport,re-export
andinsystems with conditional exemption from customs duty willtakeeffect notlater than
1January 1998.IP/Q2/CZE/1
Page7
9. Article 18(1) oftheCzech trademark lawspecifies thatonefactor inthedetermination ofwhether
amark is“wellknown ”isthe“extent orlongduration ofitsutilization forhigh-quality goods or
services ”.Please explain howthisfactor isapplied inpractice and,inparticular, whether the“high
quality ”evaluation canpreclude recognition ofamark aswell-known mark.
Thequestion isnotrelevant fortheCzech Republic atpresent, because itcontains thereference
totheprovision about so-called famous trademarks which isnowcancelled bythelawinforce.
According topresent validlegalstatus, theregistration office doesnotrequire anydataonhighquality
products orservices indicated bytrademark forsubmission ofdocuments relating tocommon trademark
knowledge.
10. Section 19(1) oftheCzech lawrequires strict compliance oftheuseofthetrademark inthe
forminwhich itisregistered. Please explain howthisprovision complies withTRIPS Article 2.1,
totheextent itincorporates Article 5C(2) oftheParis Convention, which states thatprotection shall
beafforded tomarks thatmaydiffer fromtheregistered mark aslongasthedifferences donotalter
thedistinctive character oftheregistered mark.
Thequestion stated under thispoint isnotrelevant fortheCzech Republic either, because the
stated provision oftrademark lawtowhich itrefers wascancelled bypresently valid law. The
Czech Republic through presently validlawdidnotlimitthecommitment following fromArticle 5(C)2
oftheParisConvention fortheProtection ofIndustrial Property inanyway,especially itdidnotmake
thematter inthequestion stated bythereason ofcancellation oftheregistration anddidnotreduce
thegranted protection fortrademark.
11. Section 23(1)(b) oftheCzech lawallows marks tobecancelled iftheowner doesnotprovide
a“good reason ”fornon-use. Please explain howthisprovision complies withTRIPS Article 19.1
which requires thatWTO Members recognize certain circumstances thatariseindependently ofthewill
ofthetrademark owner asbeing valid reasons fornon-use toprevent cancellation ofaregistration
fornon-use. Also, please explain thetypes ofcircumstances thatwould besufficient tosatisfy this
provision (i.e., “good reasons ”fornon-use), including, where relevant, results ofadministrative or
judicial decisions addressing thisissue.
According tothepresently validregulation oftrademark lawitispossible tocancel atrademark
foritsnon-use unless suchnon-use isproperly justified bythetrademark owner. TheIndustrial Property
Office considers aslegitimate especially those reasons which arose independently onthewillofthe
trademark owner andwere notcaused byhisnegligence. Itincludes non-caused impossibility to
manufacture products orprovide services, e.g.because offorce majeure, i.e.byinfluence ofnatural
forces without human endeavour, which could notbeprevented bycare,caution andendeavours. For
example, asaproper reason wasconsidered thereason ofthepharmaceutical product manufacturer
whojustified thenon-use oftrademark bynon-issue ofadecision fromthemedicament control body.
12. Please describe themethods bywhich industrial designs areprotected intheCzech Republic,
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;IP/Q2/CZE/1
Page8
- thenature ofremedies available totheowner ofeachtypeofprotection, including a
description oftheconditions thatmaybeimposed (e.g., whether commercial useis
required); and
- whether anyexceptions toprotection orrights existforeachtypeofintellectual property
involved.
Thelegalprotection ofindustrial designs intheCzech Republic isensured intheformofspecial
legalprotection ofindustrial designs which wasintroduced from1January 1991. Thisprotection is
contained intheLawNo.527/1990 Coll. ofL.,onInventions, Industrial Designs andRationalization
Proposals.
According totheCzech lawindustrial designs areprotected purely from theaesthetic point
ofview andnotfrom thepoint ofviewoftheirutility. Anindustrial design within themeaning of
thislawshallbetheappearance ofaproduct thatisnewandsusceptible toindustrial application. The
appearance ofaproduct shallbeconstituted byanytwoorthree-dimensional getupconsisting, in
particular, intheshape, contours, ornamentation orinthearrangement ofthecolours orinacombination
ofsuchfeatures.
Themethod ofanindustrial design protection isregistration ofanindustrial design intothe
register maintained bytheIndustrial Property Office. Thebasic substantive andlegalcondition for
providing theprotection toindustrial design isnovelty oftheindustrial design. According to§38
ofthelawtheindustrial design isnewunless priortothetermwhen theapplicant hastherightofpriority
itwasknown intheCzech Republic orabroad from publicly available sources, especially unless it
wasdisplayed ordescribed inpublished papers orunless itwaspublicly used, exhibited, demonstrated
orpresented. Another condition forobtaining protection isindustrial applicability oftheindustrial
design. According to§39ofthelawtheindustrial design issusceptible ofapplication ifitcanbeused
forrepetitive manufacturing ofproducts.
Theprocedure oftheindustrial design registration iscommenced byfiling ofanindustrial design
application withtheIndustrial Property Office. Filing ofanapplication gives theapplicant theright
ofpriority. Theapplication maycontain onlyoneappearance ofaproduct ormore appearances of
products ofidentical kindsimilar toeachother orintended forcommon use(multiple application of
theindustrial design). Theapplied industrial design issubmitted toexamination bytheOffice when
theapplied industrial design isexamined ifitisnewandsusceptible forindustrial application. Ifthe
subject matter oftheindustrial design application satisfies legalconditions forregistration, theOffice
shallperform itsregistration intheindustrial design register andshallissueacertificate ofregistration
totheindustrial design owner. TheOffice shallpublish anotice ortheregistration ofanindustrial
design intheOfficial Bulletin.
Thetermofanindustrial design registration shallbefiveyears asfrom thefiling dateofthe
application. Thetotaltermavailable forindustrial design protection intheCzech Republic is15years.
Theoriginal five-year termshallbeextended bytheIndustrial Property Office foramaximum oftwo
five-year periods.
Rights belonging bytheCzech lawtotheindustrial design owner shallhavetheexclusive
character. Theindustrial design owner shallhave, inparticular, theexclusive righttowork thedesign,
toauthorize others towork itortoassign ittoothers. Healsohastherighttoprevent allthirdpersons
from infringing hisexclusive rights.
Theregistration procedure ontheindustrial design application which isperformed bythe
IndustrialPropertyOfficeshallbegovernedbygeneralprincipleswhichareinaccordancewithArticle62IP/Q2/CZE/1
Page9
oftheTRIPS Agreement. Inaddition totheregistration procedure theOffice shallperform alsothe
procedure ontheindustrial design cancellation. Theapplicant andtheindustrial design owner shall
haveallproceedings legalmeans athisdisposal. Inareaofinfringing ofrights theindustrial design
owner shallhavecivillawproceedings athisdisposal asrequired bytheTRIPS Agreement; courts
haveappropriate competence relating totheissueofprovisional measures orinjunctions oninfringement
ofrights, indemnification orproviding evidence. Intentional infringement ofrights totheindustrial
design isqualified bytheCzech criminal lawasacriminal offence. Remedies include bothimprisonment
andfinancial penalties.
Commercial utilization oftheindustrial design isnotrequired bytheCzech law.
Thelawin§36,paragraph 2contains alistofsolutions which arenotconsidered asindustrial
designs andwhich arenotcompetent forprotection ofindustrial designs. These are:(a)atechnical
solution orconcept, (b)application oftheknown appearance ofaproduct toaproduct ofanother kind
oroftheappearance obtained byenlarging orreducing theknown appearance ofaproduct, (c)
substitution ofamaterial usedfortheappearance ofaproduct, (d)anarchitectural concept, (e)the
appearance ofaproduct thatcanonlybeascertained ifspecial attention ispaid, (f)thecolour except
where usedinrelation totheshape, contours orornamentation.
Thevalid legal regulation ofindustrial designs intheCzech Republic doesnotstateany
exceptions fromexclusive rights oftheindustrial design owner. According tolaw,effects ofindustrial
property registration arelimited onlyinthecaseoftheprevious userrightwhich isregulated inthe
lawbyprovisions of§60.
13. Please explain howtextile designs areprotected under yourlaw.
Protection oftextile designs intheCzech Republic isensured inaccordance withArticle 25.2
oftheTRIPS Agreement byvalidlegalregulation ofindustrial designs which iscontained inthesecond
partin§§36-62 oftheLaw527/1990 Coll. ofL.,onInventions, Industrial Designs andRationalization
Proposals. Thisprotection isprovided under thesame conditions which apply toprotection ofall
industrial designs. Ifatextile design isanauthor 'swork itisalsounder protection according to
copyright intheCzech Republic.
14. Please indicate whether geographical indications forwines andspirits aregiven additional
protection compared togeographical indications forother goods. Ifnot,please explain howCzech
lawisconsistent withTRIPS Article 23.
Present legislation oftheCzech Republic enables theprovision ofadditional protection of
geographical indications forwines andspirits according toArticle 23oftheTRIPS Agreement. The
basis forsuchprotection isprovided bytheLawonProtection ofAppellations ofOrigin ofProducts
(theLawNo.159/1973 Coll. ofL.)andanewCzech Trademark Law(theLawNo.137/1995 Coll.
ofL.).According totheLawonProtection ofAppellations ofOrigin ofProducts theprotection is
provided intheformofregistration oftheappellation oforigin intotheregister oftheIndustrial Property
Office. Nobody isallowed tomisuse theregistered appellation oforigin, inparticular toappropriate
itortoimitate it,evenifthetrueorigin ofaproduct isindicated oreveniftheappellation isused
intranslated orinaltered form, ifdespite thedifference there isariskofconfusion orevenifitis
accompanied byexpressions like"kind", "type", "imitation", etc.Theregistered appellation oforigin
maynotbeusedasageneric name ofaproduct (§4). Only theregistered holder ofrights tousean
appellation oforigin mayusetheregistered appellation oforigin. Theregistered holder ofrights to
useanappellation oforigin candemand fromarelevant court bodythatinfringing ofhisrights should
beprohibited andthatthedefective status should beremoved. Thevalid trademark lawoftheCzech
Republic excludes from registration asignwhich consists exclusively ofindications ofgeographicalIP/Q2/CZE/1
Page10
origin ofproducts. Inaddition, theindications which canconfuse thepublic about geographical origin
ofproducts ofservices areexcluded fromregistration. Thelawfurther enables: toexclude registration
ofallindications whose utilization would becontrary tothecommitments arising fortheCzech Republic
frominternational agreements. According totheprovisions of§3,paragraph 1oftheCzech lawthe
Office shallnotregister theindication identical withatrademark which isapplied orregistered for
another owner foridentical orsimilar products orservices withprevious rightofpriority, event. which
contains elements ofapplied indication orregistered trademark which could leadtoconfusion. The
Office shallcancel thetrademark fromtheregister ifitisfound outinproceedings commenced upon
athird person 'sproposal orexofficio thatthetrademark wasregistered inconflict withthislaw.
TheCzech Republic provides legal means which prevent theuseofthegeographical indications
identifying wines orspirits forwines andspirits which donotcome from thelocality stated inthe
respective geographical indication aswellasthrough protection against unfair competition byspecial
factual basis ofdeceptive labelling ofgoods (§46oftheLawNo.513/1991 Coll. ofL.).
15. Section 16(3) oftheCzech Trademark Actrequires theowner ofatrademark toacquiesce to
theuseofanidentical orconfusingly similar signwhich, intheperiod oftwoyears before thefiling
oftheapplication, hasbecome characteristic fortheidentical orsimilar goods orservices ofitsholder,
suchusebeing made bythatholder intheCzech Republic. Please explain howthisprovision ofCzech
lawisconsistent withTRIPS Article 16.1, which grants thetrademark owner theexclusive right to
prevent usebythird parties ofidentical orsimilar signs ongoods orservices identical toorsimilar
tothose inrespect ofwhich thetrademark isregistered.
According totheCzech Trademark Law, theholder ofanunregistered trademark isprotected
under exactly defined conditions andinthisconnection performance ofsubjective rights ofthetrademark
owner canbelimited inacasewhere performance offormal trademark lawwould interfere withthe
rights which arose byfactual useofthetrademark which wasasserted inbusiness contacts. Atpresent
therights ofholders ofunregistered trademarks areunderstood similarly astherightofaprior user
inpatent law. Limitation oftheregistration effect towards anunregistered trademark holder isnot
aninfringement ofotherwise absolute rightregulated byArticle 16.1oftheTRIPS Agreement.
16. Section 15(2) oftheCzech Trademark Actgrants theowner ofaregistered mark theauthority
toprevent thirdparties nothaving hisconsent fromusing identical orsimilar marks inrelation togoods
orservices thatareidentical tothose forwhich theregistration hasbeengranted. Itisnotclearwhether
theowner ofaregistered mark isalsogiven these rights withrespect togoods orservices thatare
similar tothose forwhich registration hasbeengranted. Please explain whether suchauthority is
granted under Czech law,andifnot,howthispractice isconsistent withTRIPS Article 16.1.
Thequestion stated hereisidentical withthequestion andanswer stated under point 5.In
every case, theowner ofaregistered trademark hastherightofprohibition ifthegoods orservices
arenotidentical butonlysimilar tothose forwhich thetrademark registration hasbeengranted.
17. Section 7(4)oftheCzech Trademark Actprovides thatcollective marks mayonlybeusedin
conjunction withanindividual mark orwiththename ofalegal person insuchawaythattheorigin
ofthegoods thusmarked shallbeclear. Please explain howthisprovision isconsistent withTRIPS
Article 20,which provides thattheuseofatrademark shallnotbeunjustifiably encumbered byspecial
requirements, suchasusewithanother trademark oruseinaspecial form.
Thequestion concerning theuseofacollective trademark relates totheregulation which was
cancelled intheCzech Republic. Atpresent, inaccordance withArticle 20oftheTRIPS Agreement,
theCzech Republic doesnotstateanyobligation touseacollective trademark inconnection withan
individual trademark.IP/Q2/CZE/1
Page11
V. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYJAPAN
1. Since itisnotclearly stipulated intheActonInventions, Industrial Designs andRationalization
Proposals thattextile designs areprotected inconformity withtheTRIPS Agreement, please explain
under which provision oftheActorother copyright related lawthesedesigns areprotected. Moreover,
tomake surethattheopportunity toseekandobtain protection fortextile designs isnotimpaired
unreasonably, please explain yoursystem orpractice particularly withregard tocost, examination
orpublication (cf.paragraph 2ofArticle 25oftheTRIPS Agreement).
Protection oftextile designs intheCzech Republic isensured inaccordance withArticle 25.2
oftheTRIPS Agreement byvalidlegalregulation forindustrial designs which iscontained inthesecond
partin§§36-62 oftheLaw No.527/1990 Coll. ofL.onInventions, Industrial Designs and
Rationalization Proposals. Thelawhasnospecial provisions fortextile designs. Thisprotection is
provided under thesameconditions which areeffective forobtaining protection ofallindustrial designs
astheappearance ofanyproduct. Thepossibility toobtain protection oftextile designs isnottied
toanyspecial conditions which would burden theapplicant. Theindustrial design must satisfy the
condition ofnovelty andindustrial applicability. Anapplied design issubmitted toexamination by
theIndustrial Property Office. During examination theOffice examines ifthesubject matter ofthe
industrial design application isnewandsusceptible toindustrial application. Theprotection shallresult
from theregistration oftheindustrial design intheregister ofindustrial designs attheOffice. The
Office shallpublish anotice oftheregistration ofanindustrial design intheOfficial Bulletin.
Theadministrative feeforfiling ofanindustrial design application containing onedesign
including issuance ofaregistration certificate, notice oftheregistered industrial design intheOfficial
Bulletin andforobtaining protection forthefirstfiveyears according tovaliddecree onadministrative
feesis1000CZK. foramultiple application which maycontain asmayastwenty variants ofdesigns,
theadministrative feeinsuchcaseis2900 CZK.
Ifthetextile design satisfies conditions oftheauthor 'swork, itisalsoprotected bycopyright
means.
2. Theword "selling" isnotincluded inthescope ofworking onindustrial design provided for
inArticle 56oftheActonInventions, Industrial Designs andRationalization Proposals. Ifthephrase
"placessuchproductonthemarket"correspondstotheword"selling",pleaseelaborateonthedifference
between thetwo(cf.paragraph 1ofArticle 26oftheTRIPS Agreement).
According totheCzech LawonInventions, Industrial Designs andRationalization Proposals,
selling ofproducts manufactured according totheregistered industrial design alsobelongs tomain
forms ofworking oftheindustrial design according tostated provision of§56ofthelawwhere this
method ofworking isexpressed bythewords "places suchproduct onthemarket". Theindustrial
design working isanexclusive rightoftheindustrial design owner. Theindustrial design owner has,
according totheCzech lawwhich isfullyinaccordance withArticle 26.1oftheTRIPS Agreement,
therighttoprevent allthirdpersons nothaving hisapproval frommanufacturing, selling orimporting
products which infringe hisexclusive rights. Thewords "placing onthemarket", except fortraditional
"selling", shallalsorelate tofurther economic activity which enables access toproducts foranunlimited
range ofinterested parties (e.g.based onacontract onthelease, onleasing, etc.).
3. Inyourcountry, thefirstduration ofprotection available islessthantenyears, andanyrenewal
thereafter cannot berequested atthetimeofregistration. Itmayhappen, therefore, thattheduration
ofprotection islessthantenyears whenthefirstduration haslapsed andtherestoration isnotpermitted
afterwards. Would thisnotbecontrary tothespirit ofparagraph 3ofArticle 26oftheTRIPS
Agreement?IP/Q2/CZE/1
Page12
Thevalidlegalregulation forindustrial designs intheCzech Republic provides theindustrial
design owner withavailable protection ofanindustrial design upto15years, i.e.fiveyears more than
required byArticle 26.3oftheTRIPS Agreement. Theoriginal termofindustrial design registration,
which isaccording toprovision of§54oftheCzech LawonInventions, Industrial Designs and
Rationalization Proposals fiveyears, shallbeextended bytheIndustrial Property Office foramaximum
oftwofive-year periods uponrequest oftheindustrial design owner. There arenoreasons forrefusal
ofprotection termextension which isfullywithin thediscretion sphere oftheindustrial design owner,
notinthediscretion competence oftheIndustrial Property Office. Inthisconnection wenotice that
theauthentic Czech wording of§54,paragraph 2oftheLawNo.527/1990 Coll. ofL.corresponds
withtheexpression "shall be"not"may be". TheCzech Republic doesnotdispose ofanydecision
which would refuse theprotection period extension ifrequired bytheindustrial design owner asassumed
by§54,paragraph 3oftheCzech law.