RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/C/W/41
1November 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-4604)
Original: English Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
REVIEW OFLEGISLATION ONTRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATIONS AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS
Replies from Liechtenstein toquestions posed bytheEuropean Community
anditsMember States1,theUnited States2andJapan3
Thefollowing communication, dated 25October 1996, hasbeenreceived fromthedelegation
ofLiechtenstein.
1IP/C/W/37
2IP/C/W/39
3IP/C/W/40IP/C/W/41
Page2
REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYTHE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
AND ITSMEMBER STATES
Trademarks andGeographical Indications
1. Within which termdoesLiechtenstein intend toputinforce therevised LawonTrademarks
andGeographical Indications?
Therevised LawonTrademarks andGeographical Indications hasbeensubmitted toParliament
inearlysummer andhasbeentreated intheParliament 'ssession of18and19September 1996infirst
reading. Itcanbeassumed, thatthenecessary second andthirdreading oftherevised lawcantake
place inthesession ofParliament inDecember 1996. Withthisassumed timetable theputting toforce
oftherevised LawonTrademarks andGeographical Indications canbeexpected forthebeginning
of1997.
2. What adjustments were/are going tobemade during thedebates inParliament withrespect
tothedraft submitted? Towhatextent dothese adjustments comply withtheTRIPS Agreement ?
Atthisstage, itisnotpossible togiveanyinformation about theadjustments which havebeen
proposed during thedebate inParliament andtheirimpact totheTRIPS-obligations ofLiechtenstein.
Wewould appreciate tohavethepossibility toanswer thisquestion indetail, based onthecomments
tothefirstreading oftherevised law,before thesecond andthirdreading inParliament willtakeplace.
Industrial Designs
3. What isthetimeschedule within which thetotalrevision oftheLiechtenstein LawonIndustrial
Designs andModels isintended tobestarted onandtobeconcluded?
InordertobeinharmonywiththeprovisionsoftheTRIPSAgreementconcerningthelegislation
ofindustrial designs, apartial revision oftheexisting Liechtenstein Lawhasbeensubmitted tothe
government anditwillbebrought forward toParliament within ashort time. Theentry intoforce
ofthepartial revision maybeexpected within thefirstsixmonths of1997.
Thetotalrevision oftheLiechtenstein LawonIndustrial Designs willtakeplace inorder to
transpose theprovisions contained intheproposal foraCouncil Directive ontheLegal Protection of
Designs (COM (93)344). Asmentioned inArticle 19oftheDirective, thelawsandregulations which
arenecessary tocomply withthisDirective havetobebrought intoforce by1January 1998.
4. What willbethemain features oftherespective revisions? What innovations areintended to
beestablished inthelineoftheimplementation oftheTRIPS Agreement?
Theabove mentioned partial revision transposes theTRIPS-obligations inthefieldofindustrial
designs intoLiechtenstein national law. Theinnovations which areintended tobeestablished arethe
following:
- Extension oftherightofpriority under theParisConvention of1967tonationals which
arenotnationals ofamember stateoftheParis Convention butofaTRIPS country
only. Thisrightofpriority canbeclaimed within aperiod ofsixmonths.
- Implementation ofArticle 41ofTRIPS ontheenforcement ofintellectual property
rights andArticle 61ofTRIPS about criminal procedures.IP/C/W/41
Page3
- Amendment oftheLiechtenstein LawonIndustrial Designs concerning theprovisions
ofArticle 46ofTRIPS (Other Remedies) andArticle 50ofTRIPS (Provisional
Measures).
- Introduction ofborder measures transposing Article 51ofTRIPS andfollowing into
Liechtenstein national law.
REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYTHE UNITED STATES
1. Pleaseindicatewhethersignsthatconsistofwords,personalnames,letters,numerals,figurative
elements, colours orcombinations thereof canconstitute atrademark, andthelegalauthority forthis
conclusion.
ConsideringArticle1,paragraph2oftheTrademarksAct,everysignwhichservestodistinguish
oridentify theorigin ofcommercial andagricultural products orgoods, affixed tothelatter ortheir
packaging inanywaycanbeconsidered asatrademark.
2. Please explain howtheTrademark LawofLiechtenstein permits theregistration oftrademarks
forservices, asrequired byTRIPS Article 16.2. Please identify therelevant legalauthority tosupport
thisexplanation.
Theprovisions relating totrademarks shallbeapplicable, mutatis mutandis ,toservice marks.
Thisprovision iscontained inArticle 1bisoftheTrademark Act.
3. Please explain whether theTrademark LawofLiechtenstein permits thefiling ofanapplication
toregister atrademark based onanintention tousethemark, rather thanuponabasis ofactual use.
Ifnot,please explain howthispractice isconsistent withTRIPS Article 15.3.
Inreferring toArticle 2oftheLiechtenstein Trademark Act,theregistrability ofatrademark
doesnotdepend onitsactual use.Article 7,paragraph 1stipulates thatanyperson having acommercial
interest intheproducts, goods andservices forwhich themarkisintended mayapply fortheregistration
ofmarks; there isnoobstacle forpermitting thefiling ofanapplication toregister atrademark based
ontheintention tousethemark.
4 Please explain whether thenature ofgoods orservices towhich atrademark istobeapplied
canserve asanobstacle totheregistration ofthemark under theTrademark LawofLiechtenstein.
Ifso,please identify andexplain thesubject matter excluded under thisauthority, therelative provisions
ofthelawthatserve asabasis forthese exclusions andhowthispractice complies withTRIPS
Article 15.4.
According toArticle 12oftheLiechtenstein Trademark Actinconnection withArticle 14of
theTrademark Act,thenature ofgoods orservices isnocriterion fortheregistration ofatrademark.
5. PleaseexplainthestandardthatisusedundertheTrademarkLawofLiechtensteinfordetermining
alikelihood ofconfusion, andthelegal basis forthisstandard.
Toanswer thisquestion, Article 6oftheLiechtenstein Trademark Acthastobequoted. A
trademark which isgoing toberegistered mustcomprise essential features thatdistinguish itfromthose
marks thathavealready beenregistered. Thereproduction ofcertain figures inanewmark, which
belong tomarks already deposited shall notexclude thenewmark from theright deriving fromIP/C/W/41
Page4
registration ifthose figures differ sufficiently fromthemark already deposited andtaken asawhole,
donoteasily leadtoconfusion.
6. Please explain thestandard usedinLiechtenstein fordetermining whether amarkiswell-known
andhowregistered andunregistered well-known marks areprotected under theTrademark Lawof
Liechtenstein. Please explain howthisstandard andpractices comply withTRIPS Articles 16.2and
16.3.
IntheTrademark Actof1928 theterm"well-known mark" doesnotexist. Besides thatfact,
only national registered well-known trademarks canfallintothescope oftheTrademark Act.
Unregistered well-known marks areprotected inthatrespect, thateachapplication handed inatthe
national office hastofulfil theobligations setoutintheTrademark ActandintheOrdinance
corresponding totheActandeachapplication issubject toanexamination based ontherules inthe
Trademark ActandtheOrdinance ontheProtection ofTrademarks, Geographical Indications and
Industrial Labelling.
Intherevision oftheTrademark Act,which haspassed Parliament initsfirstreading, theterm
"well-known mark" willbeintroduced.
7. PleaseexplainwhethertheTrademarkLawofLiechtensteinestablishesapresumptionoflikelihood
ofconfusion inthedetermination ofconfusing similarity incases where identical marks areusedon
identical goods, asrequired byTRIPS Article 16.1. Ifso,please identify andexplain thelegal basis
forthispresumption.
Theowner ofaregistered trademark hastheexclusive right toprevent allthird parties not
having hisconsent from using identical orsimilar signs forgoods orservices which areidentical or
similar tothose inrespect ofwhich thetrademark isregistered andwhere suchusewould result in
likelihood ofconfusion. Thisprovision iscontained inArticle 24oftheTrademark Act.
8. Please explain whether theinitial termandeachrenewal termforatrademark registration
inLiechtenstein lastsatleastseven years asrequired byTRIPS Article 18.
Theprotection forinitial registration is20years. Theobligations ofArticle 8oftheTrademark
Actareasfollows. Theprotection deriving fromregistration ofamark shalllastfor20years asfrom
thedayofitsdeposit withtheOffice ofNational Economy. Theproprietor ofamark mayatanytime
request therenewal oftheregistration forthesame duration. Renewal shallbesubject tothepayment
ofthesame feeandtothesame formalities asthose provided forfirstregistrations. When therenewal
oftheregistration isnotrequested within sixmonths oftheexpiry ofthetermofprotection atthelatest,
theregistration shallbecancelled.
9. Please explain thestandards andprocedures thatgovern cancellation ofregistration ofamark
fornon-use intheTrademark LawofLiechtenstein, andhowthisstandard complies withTRIPS
Article 19.
IncompliancewithArticle19oftheTRIPSAgreement,Article9oftheLiechtensteinTrademark
Actcontains thefollowing obligations. Iftheproprietor ofamark hasmade nouseofthemark during
three successive years, thecourt mayorder, attherequest ofaninterested party, thatthemark be
cancelled unless theproprietor isabletoadequately justify hisfailure tousethemark. Theuseof
amark byathirdparty having commercial tieswiththeproprietor orbyalicence shallbeconsidered
asuseofthemark bytheproprietor himself ifthelatterexercises control overthequality oftheproducts
orservices marked andiftheuseofthemark isnotlikely tomislead thepublic.IP/C/W/41
Page5
10. Please explain theprocedures governing cancellation ofregistration foratrademark dueto
nonuseand,inparticular, identify theminimum period oftimeofnon-use thatmustbeestablished
tocancel sucharegistration.
Theprocedure governing thecancellation ofaregistered trademark canbefound inArticle 24
oftheOrdinance ontheProtection ofTrademarks, Geographical Indications andIndustrial Labelling
of15June1964. ThetextoftheOrdinance which wasalsosubject ofnotification canbefound in
document IP/N/1/LIE/I/2 dated 24June1996. Thecancellation ofatrademark duetononuseisalso
covered bytheobligations ofArticle 24oftheabove mentioned Ordinance. Theminimum period
isthree successive years.
11. Please explain whether thelawofLiechtenstein permits aforeign trademark owner whoapplies
forregistration inLiechtenstein toclaim priority based onafiling inanother Paris Convention member.
InArticle 15oftheOrdinance ontheProtection ofTrademarks, Geographical Indications and
Industrial Labelling aspecification ofthecontent ofaregistration isgiven. Indent 8ofArticle 15
constitutes thepossibility toclaim priority ofthefirstapplication inaforeign country. Although no
exact definition ofpriority isgiven, ithastoberecognised thatinharmony withtheParis Convention
theright ofpriority foraperiod ofsixmonths fortrademarks (andindustrial designs) isgiven ifit
isclaimed.
12. Please describe themethods bywhich Industrial Designs areprotected inLiechtenstein, in
particular:
(a) theformorforms ofIntellectual Property usedtoprotect thedesign (e.g.patent, copyright,
suigeneris).
Liechtenstein hasusedthemethod ofcreating aspecial lawtoprotect designs andmodels.
Theprotection ofdesigns isguaranteed by:
- ActonDesigns andModels (LR232.12 LGBl. 1928No.14), adopted 26October 1928
andentered intoforce 3November 1928. TheActcontains thefollowing points:
definition, registration andprotection ofrights ofindustrial designs; priority rights,
rights acquired byexpositions.
- OrdinancetotheActonDesignsandModels(LR232.121;LGBl.1965No.28),adopted
15June1964 andentered intoforce 25June1965.
- Ordinance ontheFeesfortheRegistration ofDesigns andModels (LR232.121.1;
LGBl. 1991No.12), adopted 22January 1991andentered intoforce 16March 1991.
(b) theconditions thatmustbesatisfied toobtain thegrant ofsuchprotection (e.g.whether designs
mustbenewororiginal andtheparameters oftheseconcepts), andabriefdescription oftheregistration
orgranting procedure.
According toArticle 2oftheDesign Actinconnection withArticle 12,paragraph 1,industrial
designs areexternally conditioned forms, which aresupposed tobeusedasmodels forindustrial
production. They areprotected asfarastheyarenewandoriginal.IP/C/W/41
Page6
Application formalities are(Articles 5and15oftheDesign Act):
- filing ofadeposition request;
- deposition ofadesign item;
- payment ofthefeeforthefirstperiod ofprotection.
Thelegalclaims tobefulfilled bytheregister andtheexact content ofasingle registration
aresubject todescription intheOrdinance totheActonDesigns inArticle 14andfollowing.
(c) thenature oftherights granted andthetermofprotection provided
Owners havetherighttoprevent thirdparties fromusing avaliddeposited design forpurposes
ofdistribution andcommercial use(Article 5.2Design Act). Thetermofprotection isthree times
fiveyears (Article 8Design Act).
(d) thenature ofremedies available totheowner ofeachtypeofprotection, including adescription
oftheconditions thatmaybeimposed (e.g.whether commercial useisrequired)
Thefollowingremediesareavailabletotherightowner:suefordamages,provisionalmeasures,
attachment, confiscation, exploitation, publication ofthesentence.
(e) whetheranyexceptionstoprotectionorrightsexistforeachtypeofintellectualpropertyinvolved
There isnoexplicit Article referring toexceptions intheDesign Act. Following Article 5,
paragraph 2oftheDesign Act,itcanbeassumed thattheexception ofpersonal useapplies.
13. Please explain howtextile designs areprotected under yourlaw.
Following Article 2oftheDesign Actandthegeneral definition given therein, itcanbeassumed
thattheprotection oftextile designs isgiven bythescope oftheDesign Act.
14. Please explain whether registrations oftrademarks related towines orspirits which contain
orconsist ofageographical indication arerefused orinvalidated withrespect towines andspirits not
having thespecified origin. Ifso,please explain howthispractice isconsistent withTRIPS Article 23.2.
Concerning theregistration oftrademarks related towines orspirits, there arenospecial
provisions provided intheTrademark Actwhich giveanexclusive protection forwines andspirits.
Ingeneral following Article 18.3oftheTrademark ActandArticle 3lit.boftheUnfair Competition
Act,itisnotallowed tousegeographical indications notcorresponding withtherealorigin ofthegoods.
Ithasfurther tobenoted thatthelegalprotection provided bytheTrademark Actisapplicable also
toinfringement ofgeographical indications ofwines andspirits.
15. Please explain whether well-known trademarks forservices aregiven thesame protection as
well-known trademarks forgoods, consistent withArticle 6bisoftheParis Convention. Ifnot,please
explain howthelawofLiechtenstein isconsistent withTRIPS Article 16.2.
According toArticle 1bisoftheLiechtenstein Trademark Act,protection isgranted forgoods
andservices. Provisions expressly stating therequirements ofArticle 6bisoftheParis Convention
arenotknown atthepresent time. Inorder togetincompliance withtheexigencies oftheTRIPS
Agreement, these requirements havebeentaken intoconsideration intherevision oftheTrademark
Act.IP/C/W/41
Page7
REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYJAPAN
Industrial Designs
1. Since itisnotclearly stipulated intheActonDesigns andModels thattextile designs are
protected inconformity withtheTRIPS Agreement, please explain under which provision oftheAct
orother copyright related lawthesedesigns areprotected. Moreover, tomake surethattheopportunity
toseekandobtain protection fortextile designs isnotimpaired unreasonably, please explain yoursystem
inpractice particularly withregard tocost,examination orpublication (cf.paragraph 2ofArticle 25
oftheTRIPS Agreement).
Regarding theprotection oftextile designs, thegeneral termofanindustrial design ormodel
isgiven inArticle 2oftheLawonModels andIndustrial Designs. Thispositive formulation defines
thescope orthetermofthemodel andindustrial design which includes alsoatextile design andits
protection. Article 2hastobereadinconnection withArticle 3oftheAct.Therein anegative definition
ofthetermofanindustrial design andmodel isgiven.
Asmentioned intheprevious paragraph, itcanbeassumed thattheprotection oftextile designs
iscovered bythescope ofthenational law.Thefollowing Ordinances doregulate thesystem ofcosts,
examination andpublication:
- Ordinance totheActonDesigns andModels, adopted 15June1964 andentered into
force 25June1965;
- OrdinanceontheFeesforRegistrationofDesignsandModels,adopted22January1991
andentered intoforce 16March 1991.
BothOrdinances havebeensubject ofnotification under Article 63.2oftheTRIPS Agreement and
havebeenpublished indocument IP/N/1/LIE/D/2 dated 19July1996.
Inaddition totheabove-mentioned remarks, wewould liketodraw attention tothefactthat
inLiechtenstein onlyaverysmall number ofdesigns andmodels isregistered andthatnocaselaw
haseveroccurred.
2. Theword "making" isnotincluded inthescope ofinfringement provided forinArticle 24of
theActonDesigns andModels. Iftheword "contrefaire" corresponds totheword "making", please
elaborate onthedifferences between thetwo.
Thefirstparagraph ofArticle 26ofTRIPS says"...prevent thirdparties nothaving theowner 's
consent from making, selling... adesign which isacopy, orsubstantially acopy oftheprotected
design..." Wewould liketodraw attention tothefactthatintheLiechtenstein notification, which
washanded ininFrench andpublished indocument IP/N/1/LIE/I/1, theexpression "contrefait la
marque" wasused. Theterm"contrefait" corresponds tothewording inArticle 26ofTRIPS. There
isnodifference insubstance between thewording intheTRIPS Agreement andthedocument notified
byLiechtenstein. Theassumption ofadifference between theLiechtenstein lawandtheobligations
given byTRIPS regarding theword"making" anditsfrench translation into"contrefaire" canbecleared
offbyregarding themeaning oftheword "contrefaire", which isthereproduction byimitation.IP/C/W/41
Page8
3. Inyourcountry, thefirstduration ofprotection available islessthan10years, andanyrenewal
thereafter cannot berequested atthetimeofregistration. Itmayhappen, therefore, thattheduration
ofprotection islessthan10years when thefirstduration haslapsed andtherestoration isnotpermitted
afterwards. Would thisnotthisbecontrary tothespirit ofparagraph 3ofArticle 26oftheTRIPS
Agreement ?
InArticle 26,paragraph 3oftheTRIPS Agreement aduration ofprotection foratleast10
years isrequired. InLiechtenstein thetermofprotection isthree times fiveyears. Theonlyreason
fornotprolongating thetermofprotection would becaused ifthenecessary feesforthesecond period
ofprotection would nothave been paid. When theterm ofprotection ofamodel ordesign is
prolongated, theapplication isnotreviewed again. Articles 21and22oftheOrdinance totheAct
onDesigns andModels, adopted 15June1964 andentered intoforce 25June1965, include the
obligations towhich thenational office hastoadhere tointhecaseofprolongation ofthetermof
protection. Following these obligations, itcanbestated thattheonlyreason fornotgetting thefurther
terms ofprotection isthenon-payment oftheregistration feesbythedepositor orhisrepresentative.
SotheLiechtenstein term ofprotection ofthree times fiveyears isnotcontrary tothespirit of
paragraph 3ofArticle 26ofTRIPS.