RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/Q2/GBR/1
13October 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-4396)
Original: English Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
REVIEW OFLEGISLATION ONTRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATIONS AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS
United Kingdom1
Thepresent document reproduces thequestions puttothedelegation oftheUnited Kingdom
andtheresponsesgiveninthereviewoflegislationontrademarks,geographicalindicationsandindustrial
designs inthecontext oftheCouncil 'smeeting of11-15 November 1996.2
_______________
I. REPLY TOTHE GENERAL QUESTION CONCERNING PRIORITY RIGHTS3
Doesyourcountry recognize arightofpriority onthebasisofanearlier trademark application
filedinanyother WTO Member byanational ofaWTO Member?
Attheendof1995, theUnited Kingdom amended itstrademarks legislation torecognize a
rightofpriority onthebasisofanearlier trademark application filedbyanyperson inanyother country
which atthattimewasaWTO Member.
Therelevant legislative provisions providing thispriority rightfortrademarks applications are
Sections 35,36and55oftheTrade Marks Act1994. Section 35together withSection 55ofthe
United Kingdom Trade Marks Act1994 automatically provides forpriority tobeaccorded toatrade
mark application which hasbeenfiledinaParis Convention country. Section 36oftheTrade Marks
Act1994provides thepower toextend thesame privilege toother "relevant countries". Thecountries
deemed tobe"relevant countries" arespecified inTheTrade Marks (Claims toPriority fromRelevant
Countries) Order 1994.Thisparticular measure wasamended on24November 1995[with effect from
1January 1996] toinclude thefollowing, whoatthattimewerealltheWTO Members notparty to
theParis Convention:
Antigua andBarbuda Dominica Maldives
Bahrain Ecuador Mozambique
1Asregards lawsandregulations relevant totheareas under review asnotified bytheUnited Kingdom, reference is
made todocument IP/N/1/GBR/1 aswellasdocuments IP/N/T/GBR/T/1-2, IP/N/1/GBR/G/1-2, IP/N/1/GBR/D/1-2 and
IP/N/1/GBR/C/1.
2Theminutes ofthismeeting arecontained indocument IP/C/M/11.
3Atthemeeting oftheTRIPS Council of11-15 November 1996, Members agreed torespond tothisquestion inthe
context ofthepresent review (document IP/C/M/11, paragraph 43).IP/Q2/GBR/1
Page2
Belize Guatemala Myanmar
Bolivia Hong Kong Namibia
Botswana India Nicaragua
Brunei Darussalam Jamaica Pakistan
Colombia Kuwait Sierra Leone
Djibouti Macau Thailand
Further amending legislation iscurrently being produced toupdate theabove listtoinclude
those countries whohavemore recently acceded totheWTO andwhoarealsonotparty totheParis
Convention.
II. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYTHE UNITED STATES
1. Section 56(3) oftheTrade Marks Act1994 appears topermit theuseofawell-known mark,
byother thantheproprietor ofthemark, iftheusebegan prior tothepassage ofthecurrent law.
Please explain whether thisisanaccurate understanding ofthisprovision and,ifso,howthisis
consistent withArticle 2oftheTRIPS Agreement, totheextent itincorporates Article 6bisoftheParis
Convention, andArticles 16.2and16.3oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Section 56(3) oftheTrade Marks Act1994 doesnotpermit theuseofawell-known mark,
byother thantheproprietor ofthemark, ifsuchusebegan before thecommencement ofthecurrent
law. Rather itensures thatmeans ofother thanSection 56(2) must berelied upon toprevent the
continuation ofanybonafideuseofatrademark begun before thecommencement ofthesection; for
example, thelawofpassing off.
2. Please explain howwell-known marks usedbythirdparties prior totheTrade Marks Act1994
areprotected intheUnited Kingdom andhowUnited Kingdom lawinthisregard complies withthe
requirements ofArticle 16oftheTRIPS agreement.
Well-known marks usedbythirdparties priortotheentry intoforce oftherelevant provisions
oftheTrade Marks Act1994 continue tobeprotected astheywere prior totheentry intoforce of
the1994 Act. Thatis,under thecommon lawtortofpassing off.TheUnited Kingdom considers
thattheprotection afforded towell-known marks against usebythirdparties under thelawofpassing
offfullycomplies withtherequirements ofArticles 16.2and16.3oftheTRIPS Agreement.
[Follow-up question from theUS]
What aretheelements thatmustbeshown bytheowner ofanunregistered well-known mark
inorder toprevail inanaction toprotect itsmark under thecommon lawtortofpassing offprior to
thepassage ofthe1994Act? Forexample, musttheowner ofthewell-known mark haveusedthemark
intheUnited Kingdom? Must theowner ofthewell-known mark havegoodwill inthemark inthe
United Kingdom? Arethere anyrecent reported cases onthismatter?
Toprotect itsmark under thecommon lawtortofpassing off,theowner ofanunregistered
well-known mark would havetoshow thefollowing three elements: misrepresentation (which need
notbeintentional), reputation (sometimes expressed as"goodwill") anddamage.IP/Q2/GBR/1
Page3
Thecourts intheUnited Kingdom havegiven nospecific guidance concerning whether awell-
known mark mustbeusedintheUnited Kingdom, orwhether theowner ofthewell-known mark must
havegoodwill intheUnited Kingdom. Thecourt willconsider eachindividual caseonitsmerits,
according tothespecific facts.
Wearenotaware ofanyrecent reported cases onthismatter.
3. Theprovision forwell-known marks inSection 6(1)(c) oftheTrade Marks Act1994 doesnot
specify thattherenown ofthemark bedetermined bytaking intoaccount therelevant sector ofthe
public andknowledge obtained through thepromotion ofthemark, asisrequired bytheTRIPS
Agreement. Please explain whether thisstandard isestablished byregulation orthrough caselaw
and,ifneither, howthelawoftheUnited Kingdom canbeconsidered consistent withArticle 16.2of
theTRIPS Agreement.
AsUSquestion 3correctly surmises, theTrade Marks Act1994 doesnotspecify explicitly
that,indetermining whether atrademark iswellknown, account mustbetaken oftheknowledge of
thetrademark intherelevant sector ofthepublic andknowledge obtained through promotion ofthe
mark. Thisstandard isestablished bycaselaw. Indetermining whether atrademark iswellknown,
acourt intheUnited Kingdom would necessarily havetotakeaccount ofanyandallrelevant facts
uponwhich itisaddressed. Inthisrespect, thelawoftheUnited Kingdom isconsistent withArticle 16.2
oftheTRIPS Agreement.
[Follow-up question from theUS]
Please provide citation toandacopyofanycase(s) inwhich theArticle 16.2oftheTRIPS
Agreement isestablished andapplied byUKcourts.
Wearenotaware ofanycase(s) inwhich thestandard ofArticle 16.2oftheTRIPS Agreement
hasbeenestablished andapplied bycourts intheUnited Kingdom.
4. Please describe themethods bywhich industrial designs areprotected intheUnited Kingdom,
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.IP/Q2/GBR/1
Page4
Introduction
TheUnited Kingdom 'sobligations under Section 4ofPartIIoftheTRIPS Agreement aremet
bytheRegistered Designs Act1949. TheActwassignificantly amended bytheCopyright, Designs
andPatents Act1988. Thislatter Actincludes inSchedule 4acopyoftheRegistered Designs Act1994
asamended.
TheRegistered Designs Act1949 provides protection, based upon registration, fordesigns
which arenew.
Section 1(1)oftheActdefines designs asfeatures ofshape, configuration, pattern orornament
applied toanarticle byanyindustrial process, being features which inthefinished article appeal to
andarejudged bytheeye.Excluded fromprotection arefeatures ofshape orconfiguration ofanarticle
which aredictated solely bythefunction which thearticle hastoperform oraredependent upon the
appearance ofanother article ofwhich thearticle isintended bytheauthor ofthedesign toform an
integral part. Such exceptions areconsistent withArticle 25.1oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Registration Procedure
Anapplication forregistration ofadesign isfirstfiledattheUnited Kingdom Patent Office
inthemanner andform prescribed intheActandtheRegistered Design Rules 1995. Asearch and
examination isthenperformed toensure thatthedesign isnew. Ifitisandtheformal requirements
specified intheRules andActarealsomet,thenacertificate ofregistration isissued. Registration
should normally becompleted within sixmonths.
Rights Conferred
Theregistration ofadesign under theActgivestheregistered proprietor thefollowing exclusive
rights:
(a) tomake orimport forsaleorhireorforthepurposes ofatrade orbusiness; or
(b) tosell,hireoroffer orexpose forsaleorhire,
anarticle inrespect ofwhich thedesign isregistered andtowhich thatdesign, oradesign not
substantially different fromit,hasbeenapplied. Suchrights fullymeettherequirements ofArticle 26.1
oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Theduration ofprotection foraregistered design isuptoamaximum of25years, renewable
atfiveyearly intervals onpayment oftherequired fee.Thisexceeds theminimum oftenyears protection
required byArticle 26.3oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Available Remedies
Although theActdoesnotspecifically statewhatremedies areavailable totheproprietor, the
usual remedies forintellectual property infringement areavailable: namely, injunctions, damages or
anaccount ofprofit, orders fordelivery upofinfringing articles andcosts andinterest would apply.
Further details onthismatter areincluded intheUnited Kingdom 'sresponses tothechecklist ofissues
onenforcement ofintellectual property rights. (IP/C/5).4
4TheUnited Kingdom 'sresponses tothischecklist canbefound indocument IP/N/6/GBR/1.IP/Q2/GBR/1
Page5
5. Please explain howtextile designs areprotected under yourlaw.
Textile designs areprotectable intheUnited Kingdom under theRegistered Designs Act1949
totheextent thattheymeetitsgeneral requirements astoprotectability, andbycopyright lawasartistic
works under theCopyright, Designs andPatents Act1988. Suchprotection isprovided inaccordance
withArticle 25.2ofTRIPS.
III. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYJAPAN
1. Pleaseexplaindifferencesindetailbetween"well-knowntrademarks"describedinSection6(1)(c)
and56(2) oftheTrade Marks Act1994, and"reputed trademarks" described inSection 5(3)ofthe
Act.
Section 6(1)oftheTrade Marks Act1994defines themeaning of"earlier trademark" asused
throughout theTrade Marks Act1994. Sub-section (c)fulfils theUnited Kingdom 'sobligations under
Article 6bisoftheParisConvention byensuring thatwell-known trademarks areconsidered tobeprior
rights. Section 56(2) entitles theproprietor ofawell-known mark torestrain byinjunction theuse
intheUnited Kingdom ofidentical orsimilar marks inrespect ofthesame orsimilar goods, evenif
thewell-known mark isnotregistered asatrademark intheUnited Kingdom.
Section 5(3)implements Articles 4(3)and4(4)oftheEuropean Council Directive of
21December 1988toapproximate thelawsoftheMember States oftheEuropean Communities relating
totrademarks (89/104/EEC). Insodoing, itextends beyond theprotection required byArticle 16.3
oftheTRIPS Agreement tocover registered trademarks which haveareputation, andnotmerely
registered trademarks which areconsidered tobewell-known.
However, intheUnited Kingdom, thematter ofwhether amark iswell-known orwhether
ithasareputation arequestions which mustultimately beleftfortheCourts todecide. Nevertheless,
theUnited Kingdom isconfident thattherequirements oftheTRIPS Agreement arefullymetinthis
respect.
2. Please explain whether ornot"iftheuseofthelatermark without duecause would takeunfair
advantage of,orbedetrimental to,thedistinctive character ortherepute oftheearlier trademark"
described inSection 5(3)oftheTrade Marks Act1994isidentical with"provided thatuseofatrademark
inrelation togoods orservices which arenotsimilar tothose inrespect ofwhich thetrademark is
registered would indicate aconnection between those goods orservices andtheowner oftheregistered
trademark andprovided thattheinterests oftheowner oftheregistered trademark arelikely tobe
damaged bysuchuse"asdescribed inArticle 16.3oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Section 5(3)oftheTrade Marks Act1994 mirrors Article 8(5)ofCouncil Regulation (EC)
40/94 which implements theCommunity trademark system. Regulation (EC)40/94 became operational
on1April 1996. Todate,Article 8(5)oftheRegulation hasnotbeenapplied inpractice. Nevertheless,
itshould benoted thatthereference to"usewithout duecause" reflects ageneral principle oflaw,
i.e.a"ruleofreason", asaconsequence ofwhich theuseofasign,which would inprinciple constitute
trademark infringement under Article 8(5),maybeconsidered justified inexceptional circumstances.
InArticle 8(5)oftheRegulation, thisprinciple isreflected bythewording "without duecause", implying
thatinexceptional cases, useofasignwhich isidentical orsimilar toaregistered mark fordissimilar
goods orservices maybepermissible, evenwhere theother elements oftrademark infringement apply.
Itshould bestressed that,asarule,theexception under theruleofreason willnotapply. Jurisprudence
attheleveloftheMember States hasshown thatdefences onthebasisoftheruleofreason havenever
beensuccessful. Inorder tosuccessfully invoke theruleofreason, some Member States 'jurisdictionsIP/Q2/GBR/1
Page6
require thattheuserofthesignmustprove either thathehasanimperative needtousethesignand
thathecannot reasonably beobliged torenounce onsuchuse,orthatsuchuserproves thathehas
anownrighttousethesign.
3. Please elaborate on"theusewithout duecause" described inSection 5(3)oftheTrade Marks
Act1994 bygiving examples, andalsowhether ornotthetrademark maybeusedorisregistrable
when thereis"duecause". Ifitisso,please explain itsconsistency withtheprovisions ofArticle 16.3
oftheTRIPS Agreement which makes noreference to"duecause".
Asindicated above, thewords "theusewithout duecause" inSection 5(3)oftheTrade Marks
Act1994 mirror those inArticle 8(5)ofCouncil Regulation (EC) 40/94. Again, itmustbeleftfor
theCourts (andultimately theEuropean Court ofJustice) todecide precisely whatismeant bythese
words. Sofar,nosuchexamples havebeenconsidered bytheCourts.
4. Please explain differences between "thegenuine use"ofatrademark described inSection 46
oftheTrade Marks Act1994 and"theuse"ofthetrademark described inArticle 19.1oftheTRIPS
Agreement. Inthecasewhere atrademark isputto"theuse"asstipulated inofArticle 19.1ofthe
TRIPS Agreement, though notto"thegenuine use"asprovided forintheTrade Marks Act1994, for
three years afterthelapse oftwoyears ofnon-use, would theregistration ofthesaidtrademark be
cancelled?
Section 46oftheTrade Marks Act1994 requires "genuine use"tomaintain registration of
atrademark, andnotmerely "use" which isthesubject ofArticle 19oftheTRIPS Agreement. Once
again, thewords "genuine use"mirror those inCouncil Regulation (EC) 40/94.
Articles 15and50ofRegulation (EC) 40/94 stipulate thatif,within fiveyears following
registration, theproprietor hasnotputtheCommunity trademark togenuine use,suchmark shallbe
thesubject ofthesanctions provided forintheRegulation. Inapplying Article 19oftheTRIPS
Agreement, thecourts orother competent authorities oftheMembers oftheWTO willhavetointerpret
theconcept of"use". Ininterpreting thisconcept, theymaywellarrive attheconclusion that,for
example, thesimple advertising ofthetrademark, withtheonlyobjective toprevent cancellation of
themark 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.
5. Itseems thattheTrade Marks Act1994 hasnoprovisions onrefusal orinvalidation ofthe
registration ofatrademark forwines which contains orconsists ofageographical indication identifying
wines oratrademark forspirits which contains orconsists ofageographical indication identifying
spirits withrespect tosuchwines orspirits nothaving thisorigin. Please explain howthegeographical
indications forthewines andspirits originating fromotherWTOMembers areprotected bytheTrade Marks
Act1994andalsowhether suchprotection isconsistent withArticles 3and23.2oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Section 3(3)(b) oftheTrade Marks Act1994provides thatanapplication toregister atrademark
intheUnited Kingdom shallberefused onabsolute grounds ifitisofsuchanature astodeceive the
public astothegeographical origin ofthegoods. Inpractice, thismeans thatapplications fortrademarks
which contain orconsist ofgeographical indications withrespect towines orspirits nothaving such
anorigin arerefused because theycould deceive thepublic astothegeographical origin ofthewines
and/or spirits. Insuchcases, there isnoneedtoconsider whether there hasbeen, orwould be,actual
deception. Geographical indications forwines andspirits originating anywhere intheworld arethus
protected intheUnited Kingdom bytheTrade Marks Act1994, andtheUnited Kingdom believes
thatitslawsfullycomply withtherequirements ofArticle 23.2oftheTRIPS Agreement.IP/Q2/GBR/1
Page7
6. Inyourcountry, where theprovisions onthe"Crown use"areapplied, some restrictions are
imposed ontheowner ofaprotected industrial design: forexample, license feeswillnotbepaidto
theowner ofaregistered design. Isthere anypossibility thatthelegitimate interests ofarightholder
canbeunreasonably prejudiced within themeaning ofArticle 26.2oftheTRIPS Agreement?
TheRegistered Designs Act1949 provides thatanygovernment department oranyperson
authorized inwriting byagovernment department mayuseanyregistered design fortheservices of
theCrown. Such useincludes:
(a) thesupply tothegovernment ofanycountry outside theUnited Kingdom under an
agreement between thatcountry andtheUnited Kingdom ofarticles required forthe
defence ofthatcountry oranycountry whose government isparty toanagreement
withtheUKGovernment overdefence matters; and
(b) thesupply totheUnited Nations oragovernment ofanycountry belonging tothat
Organization ofarticles required forarmed forces operating under aUnited Nations
Resolution.
TheActrequires that,unless itwould appear contrary tothepublic interest todoso,the
registered proprietor istobenotified assoonaspracticable aftertheuseisbegun andistobegiven
suchinformation astotheextent oftheuseashemayfromtimetotimerequire. Theuseofadesign
byoronbehalf ofthegovernment afterthedateofregistration shallbeonsuchterms asmaybeagreed
between thegovernment andtheregistered proprietor orasmaybedetermined bythecourt inthe
absence ofsuchagreement.
Compensation isalsoavailable totheregistered proprietor, ortoanexclusive licensee, for
anylossresulting from hisnotbeing awarded acontract tosupply thearticles towhich thedesign is
applied.
Theonlyexception totheabove iswhere theCrown hasindependently developed adesign
which isnotsubstantially different, priortothedateofregistration oftheproprietor 'sdesign. Insuch
cases, theCrown maycontinue touseitsdesign freeofroyalty. Suchalimited exception istherefore
notconsidered tounreasonably prejudice thelegitimate interests oftheproprietor oftheregistered
design andassuchisnotconsidered toconflict withArticle 26.2oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Itshould alsobenoted thatcases involving theuseofaregistered design bythegovernment
arerare. Indeed thePatent Office, which isthegovernment authority responsible foradministering
theRegistered Designs Act,isunaware ofanyrecent usesofaregistered design byoronbehalf of
thegovernment.