RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/Q2/SVK/1
22May1977
ORGANIZATION(97-2126)
Original: English Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
REVIEW OFLEGISLATION ONTRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATIONS AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS
Slovak Republic
Thepresent document reproduces theintroductory statement made bythedelegation ofthe
Slovak Republic inthereview oflegislation ontrademarks, geographical indications andindustrial
designs attheCouncil 'smeeting of11-15 November 1996, thequestions puttoitandtheresponses
given1.
_______________
I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
TheAgreement onTrade-Related Aspects ofIntellectual Property Rights wasadopted bythe
Slovak National Council, ratified bythePresident andentered intoforce on1January 1995. The
majority oftheregulations relating totheprotection ofindustrial property which resulted from the
TRIPS Agreement isincorporated intoourlegislation. TheSlovak Republic, withtheaimtooffer
highquality commitments intheareaofindustrial property rights, hasnotapplied Article 65.3and
committed itself toapply theTRIPS Agreement without anydelay.
Thecurrent legislation isunder consideration insome areas which willfurther improve the
quality ofrelevant provisions consistent withtheTRIPS Agreement. Theareaoftrademarks iscovered
byActNo.174/1988 Coll. onTrademarks2andcurrently therelevant amendments areunder
consideration. Most questions relating totrademarks result fromthecurrently validAct(e.g.general
provisions, rights ofthetrademark holder, theprotection ofwell-known marks) andallofthem will
bereflected intheprepared amendment ofthelaw. Theproposal forthisnewlawisinthefinalstage
ofpreparation andhasbeenforwarded totheSlovak National Council forapproval anditisexpected
tocome intoforce asfrom thebeginning ofnextyear. ThisLawwillfullyreflect allprovisions of
theTRIPS Agreement andofECDirective No.89/104/EC ontheapproximation oflawsconcerning
trademarks andalsoprovisions oftheTrademark LawTreaty. TheSlovak Republic willnotify the
lawimmediately aftercoming intoforce.
Geographical indications areprotected byActNo.159/1973 Coll. onProtection ofAppellation
ofOrigin ofProducts3.Only registered appellations provide theprotection forproducts thequality
1Theminutes ofthismeeting arecontained indocument IP/C/M/11.
2ThetextofthisLawiscontained indocument IP/N/1/SVK/T/1.
3ThetextofthisLawiscontained indocument IP/N/1/SVK/G/1.IP/Q2/SVK/1
Page2
andcharacteristics ofwhich aredueexclusively oressentially tothegeographical environment, including
natural andhuman factors. Only theregistered holder oftheright touseageographical indication
canusetheregistered geographical indication. Nooneshallhavetheright tomisuse aregistered
geographical indication, inparticular tomisappropriate itortoimitate it.Notobeying theprovisions
oftheabove-mentioned lawleading tounfair competition could beprosecuted according todue
paragraphs oftheTrade Code which qualify themisleading denomination ofgoods andservices as
unfair competition.
Regardingtheprotectionofgeographicalindicationsforwinesandspirits,atpresenttheadditional
protection canprovide ActNo.159/1973 Coll. onProtection ofAppellations ofOrigin ofProducts
andtheproposal ofthenewTrademark Lawaswell.
II. REPLY TOTHE GENERAL QUESTION CONCERNING PRIORITY RIGHTS4
Doesyourcountry recognize arightofpriority onthebasisofanearlier trademark application
filedinanyother WTO Member byanational ofaWTO Member?
TheSlovak Republic recognizes arightofpriority onthebasisofanearlytrademark application
forthose members applying theTRIPS Agreement. Inaddition, theSlovak Republic hasnotspecific
difficulty toeffect thisrighttothose Members applying theprovisions ofArticle 65concerning the
possible delay inimplementing theTRIPS Agreement.
III. REPLIESTOQUESTIONSPOSEDBYTHEEUROPEANCOMMUNITIESANDTHEIR
MEMBER STATES
1. Could theSlovak Republic explain howtherights ofthirdparties (e.g.theowner ofatrademark
withthepriority ofaprevious filing) aretaken intoaccount during theprocess oftheregistration of
atrademark (Article 15.5oftheTRIPS Agreement)?
Pursuant totheexisting ActNo.174/1988 Coll. (§3,sub-section 1,letter e)theOffice shall
refuse theregistration ofamarking which isidentical withatrademark withearlier priority datefor
products andservices ofthesame kind.
Confusingly similar trademarks shallbecancelled bytheOffice upon request oftheholder
ofthetrademark forwhich theapplication wasfiledearlier iftheOffice ascertains thatthedisputed
trademark isregistered forproducts andservices ofthesame kindandthatnomore thanfiveyears
haveelapsed from theregistration ofthedisputed trademark (§23, sub-section 2).
However, theproposed newActonTrademarks willenable toprotect therights ofthirdparties
during opposition proceedings. Theopposition maybelodged byanyperson whose interest was
prejudiced within three months fromthedateofpublication intheOffice Bulletin. Thisprecedes the
registration ofthetrademark. After theregistration hasbeenperformed, third parties mayprotect
theirrights byasking forcancellation ofthetrademark orbyinstituting asuitagainst thecontravene.
2. Article 16oftheTRIPS Agreement determines awell-known trademark, withnoadditional
conditions based onadecision ofthestateauthority. Isitanintention oftheSlovak Republic toamend
4Atthemeeting oftheTRIPS Council of11-15 November 1996, Members agreed torespond tothisquestion inthe
context ofthepresent review (document IP/C/M/11, paragraph 43).IP/Q2/SVK/1
Page3
thetrademark lawandadjust respective provisions fullyinconformity withthisArticle? Ifyes,what
willbethemain elements? Ifno,which arethereasons?
Intheamended version oftheAct,thenotorious mark istreated asawell-known mark in
compliance withArticle 16oftheTRIPS Agreement. Themain elements required are:
- useofthemark intheSlovak Republic;
- general notoriety;
- reference toalinkwiththeholder ofawell-known mark.
According totheamended version oftheAct,well-known trademarks willnotbesubject to
anyother additional conditions.
3. Againstthebackgroundoftheaforesaid(withrespecttoArticle16.2),howistheSlovakRepublic
going toembody theprovisions ofArticle 16.3intoitsdomestic legislation (Law onTrademarks)?
Article 16,§3isincorporated inthenewActandgives theholder ofanotorious mark a
possibility ofdefence during theopposition proceedings orthecancellation proceedings andgives
entitlement totheholder toclaim abanonuseofamark identical tohisnotorious mark regardless
ofidenticalness orsimilarity ofgoods orservices ifsuchusecould create evidence ofalinkbetween
goods andservices somarked andtheholder ofanotorious mark andiftheholder 'sinterest could
beprejudiced.
4. Could theSlovak Republic explain howthedefinition ofappellation oforigin included inits
legislation fulfils thecriteria setoutinArticle 22.1oftheTRIPS Agreement?
Pursuant to§1ofActNo.159/1973 Coll., ageographical indication isdefined asinformation
astowhere aproduct thequality orcharacteristics ofwhich arebased exclusively ortoasignificant
extent onthegeographical environment (including natural andhuman factors) comes from. Inour
opinion, suchwording isinfullcompliance withArticle 22.1oftheTRIPS Agreement.
5. Could theGovernment oftheSlovak Republic statewhether itslegislation foresees additional
protection forgeographical indications forwines andspirits (Article 23oftheTRIPS Agreement)?
Ifyes,please explain.
ActNo.159/1973 Coll.provides theprotection ofgeographical indications forwines andspirits
inconformity withArticle 23oftheTRIPS Agreement. Theprotection isgranted intheform of
registration intotheRegister. Nooneshallhavetherighttomisuse aregistered appellation oforigin,
inparticular tomisappropriate itortoimitate it,evenwhere thetrueorigin oftheproduct isindicated
orwhere theappellation isusedinatranslated oraltered formifdespite thedifferences there isarisk
ofconfusion, orevenwhere theappellation isaccompanied byterms suchas"kind", "type", "make",
"imitation" orthelike. Aregistered appellation oforigin maynotbeusedasthegeneric name of
aproduct.
6. Does thelawoftheSlovak Republic provide fortheprotection oftextile designs, including
fashion (Article 25.2oftheTRIPS Agreement)? Ifyes,onwhatlegalbasisandunder which conditions?IP/Q2/SVK/1
Page4
Theprotection oftextile designs andfashion intheform ofindustrial designs provide
ActNo.527/1990Coll.onInventions,IndustrialDesignsandRationalizationProposals5.Theprotection
oftextile designs isprovided under thesameconditions asforother industrial designs. Theregistered
industrial design hastofulfil theconditions resulting fromthislaw-anexternal design which isnew
andsusceptible toindustrial application. Theprotection ofanindustrial design arises aftertheindustrial
design isregistered intheRegister ofindustrial designs. Theprotection oftextile designs isprovided
incompliance withArticle 25.2oftheTRIPS Agreement.
7. Theduration ofprotection under Slovak lawamounts tofiveyears (paragraph 54ofActNo.
527/1990 Coll.onInventions). Thisperiod maybeextended bytheIntellectual Property Office, based
ontherequest oftheowner ofanindustrial design, foramaximum oftwofive-year periods.
- AretheSlovak 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?
Pursuant to§54,sub-section 1ofActNo.527/1990 theduration oftheprotection ofindustrial
designs isfiveyears. Theprovision of§54,sub-section 2stipulates thattheOffice shallextend such
period notmore thantwice, forfiveyears ineachinstance. TheOffice innocasewillrefuse such
extension. Theexisting Acttherefore doesnotstipulate thattheOffice "may" extend suchperiod.
Presumably itisduetoanerror intranslation. Theextension oftheprotection period isautomatic,
subject totheholder 'sfiling ofanapplication andpayment oftherespective fees. TheOffice does
notrequire norexamine anyother condition.
IV. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYTHE UNITED STATES
1. Section2oftheGeneralProvisionsoftheSlovakTrademarkLawliststhesignsthatcanconstitute
atrademark. Thislistdoesnotinclude personal names, numerals, letters orcolours. Please explain
howSection 2oftheGeneral Provisions complies withTRIPS Article 15.1.
Pursuant totheexisting ActNo.174/1988 Coll., §2,theprotection inform oftrademarks
isprovided forverbal, image, three-dimensional andcombined signs. According torecent practice,
suchterms include anygraphic presentations, including combinations ofcolours. However, in§1of
theproposed newActonTrademarks, theprotection isprovided forthefollowing symbols: words,
including names ofpersons, letters, numbers, drawings, shape ofproducts oritspackaging orthemutual
combinations oftheabove, including combinations ofcolours. From registration isexcluded asign
thatisnotcapable ofbeing represented graphically. Asatrademark willberegarded onlythesign
which isvisually perceptible. So,thenewActwillbeinfullconformity withArticle 15.1oftheTRIPS
Agreement.
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 howSlovak lawcomplies withthisprovision oftheTRIPS Agreement.
5ThetextofthisLawiscontained indocument IP/N/1/SVK/I/2.IP/Q2/SVK/1
Page5
There isnomention thattheregistration ofthemark would besubject tofactual useofthe
mark, neither intheexisting legislation norinthenewAct. Thefiling oftheapplication isnotatall
conditioned bytheuseofthemark, either factual orvirtual. TheOffice shallcancel thetrademark
registration fromtheRegister ifinthecourse ofproceedings initiated attherequest ofthethirdparty
orexofficio ,itestablishes thatthetrademark hasnotbeenusedintheSlovak Republic foratleast
fiveyears before theinitiation ofcancellation proceedings, andtheowner ofthetrademark doesnot
givegood reason forthenon-use; useofthetrademark byathirdparty under anagreement shallbe
considered proper use.Article 15.3oftheTRIPS Agreement isincluded intheSlovak legislation -
incurrent law,ActNo.174/1988 Coll., andintheproposal ofthenewTrademark Law.
3. Please explain whether thenature ofgoods orservices towhich atrademark istobeapplied
canserve asanobstacle totheregistration ofthemark under Slovak law. Ifso,please identify and
explain thesubject matter excluded under thisauthority; therelative provisions oftheSlovak lawthat
serve asabasis forthese exclusions; andhowthispractice complies withTRIPS Article 15.4.
ActNo.174/1988 recognizes asanimpediment fortheregistration ofthetrademark neither
thenature ofgoods norofservices towhich atrademark istobeapplied. Whether theprotected product
orservice isorisnotthesubject ofcommercial use,itisnotanobstacle forregistration ofthe
trademark. Nosuchprovision isincluded intheproposal foranewlaw.Based onthis,boththecurrent
lawandthenewproposal areinaccordance withArticle 15.4oftheTRIPS Agreement.
4. Section 13(1) oftheSlovak Trademark Lawprovides fora10yeartermfortrademarks beginning
onthefiling dateoftheapplication, notfromthedatetheregistration isgranted. Please explain how
thisprovision complies withtheobligation ofTRIPS Article 18thatWTO Members provide aminimum
seven yeartermofprotection forregistered trademarks.
Inspiteofthefactthatatrademark enjoys a10-year period ofprotection starting from the
dateoffiling, theregistration procedures donotexceed more thanthreeyears; so,thisprovision fully
conforms withArticle 18oftheTRIPS Agreement.
5. Please explain whether theowner ofaregistered trademark hastheexclusive righttoprevent
thirdparties fromusing identical orsimilar signs onsimilar goods orservices asrequired byTRIPS
Article 16.1.
Pursuant totheexisting wording ofActNo.174/1988 onTrademarks, §15,sub-section 2,
theholder hasanexclusive righttoprevent thirdparties fromusing identical orsimilar marking for
goods andservices ofthesame kind.
Intheproposal foranewActsuchentitlement oftheowner applies alsotosimilar products
andservices. Thiswillfulfil thewording ofArticle 16.1oftheTRIPS Agreement.
6. Please explain whether theSlovak Trademark Lawestablishes apresumption oflikelihood of
confusioninthedeterminationofconfusingsimilarityincaseswhereidenticalmarksareusedonidentical
goods, asrequired byTRIPS Article 16.1. Ifso,please identify andexplain thelegal basis forthis
presumption.
TheexistingActallowscancellationastheremedy(§23,sub-section2)byvirtueofthepossibility
ofconfusion ofthemark.
Theproposal foranewActextends suchremedies forthebenefit oftheholder ofasimilar
trademark tofileopposition against theregistration ofsuchmarkings afteritspublication intheGazette
oftheIndustrial Property Office oftheSlovak Republic.IP/Q2/SVK/1
Page6
Recent regulations donotincorporate apresumption oflikelihood ofconfusion, since the
trademark holder hasanexclusive righttoprevent allthirdparties from using identical orconfusing
signsforgoodsorservicesincludingthosesignswheresuchusewouldresultinalikelihoodofconfusion.
So,therecently valid Actandthenewproposal provide amore extensive protection thanisrequired
byArticle 16.1oftheTRIPS Agreement.
[Follow-up question from theUnited States]
Intheanswer toquestion 6,itwasstated thatthereisnopresumption oflikelihood ofconfusion
where anidentical mark isusedonidentical goods orservices, butthattherequirements ofTRIPS
Article 16.1aresatisfied because therightholder hastheexclusive righttoprevent theuseofthemark
bythirdparties. Does thismean thatiftherightholder canshow thatthethirdparty mark isidentical
andisusedonidentical goods orservices, thatnofurther proof astolikelihood ofconfusion isrequired?
Noother proof astothelikelihood ofconfusion willberequired, because thetrademark holder
intheSlovak Republic hasanexclusive righttousethistrademark. Noonemayuseatrademark without
theauthorization ofitsowner oruseasignthatisidentical orconfusingly similar tothemark for
identical orsimilar goods orservices asthose forwhich thetrademark isregistered. From thisclearly
results thatthetrademark holder hasalways thisrightregardless ofwhether suchuseshould result
inlikelihood ofconfusion. Forthisreason, thepresumption oflikelihood ofconfusion wasnot
incorporated intheproposal ofthenewlaw.
7. Please explain:
- thestandard used intheSlovak Republic fordetermining whether amark is
“well-known ”;
- howregistered andunregistered well-known marks areprotected under theTrademark
LawoftheSlovak Republic; and
- whether knowledge within therelevant sector ofthepublic asaresult ofpromotion
ofthemark isconsidered intheanalysis leading toadetermination thatamark is
well-known.
Withrespect toeachaspect ofthisquestion, please explain howthestandards orpractices comply
withTRIPS Articles 16.2and16.3.
Thenotoriety ofatrademark is,forthetimebeing, decided bytheOffice assetforth in
ActNo.174/1988 Coll. (§18).
Pursuant totheexisting legislation governing notoriety oftrademarks, theOffice decides upon
therequest oftheholder andbased ondocuments attached totheapplication. ThenewActintroduces
anamendment according towhich atrademark doesnotbecome well-known byvirtue ofadecision
oftheOffice, butbyvirtue ofamere useofthemark.
Thewell-known mark enjoys more extensive protection andapplies toallkinds ofproducts
andservices. Thenotoriety ofthemark intheappropriate segment ofthepublic isoneoftherelevant
criteria which determines whether atrademark iswell-known ornot.Infact,theproposal foranew
ActhasadoptedentirelytheprovisionsofArticles16.2and16.3oftheTRIPSAgreementforthepurpose
ofdetermining whether atrademark iswell-known ornotandforthepurpose ofprotecting such
trademarks.IP/Q2/SVK/1
Page7
[Follow-up questions from theUnited States]
(i) Canwell-known mark status beachieved through advertising ormarketing, orisuseinthe
Slovak Republic required?
Well-knownmarkstatusintheSlovakRepubliccanbeachievedthroughadvertisingormarketing.
(ii) Theanswer toquestion 7indicates thatthenotoriety ofthemark intherelevant segment of
thepublic is"oneoftherelevant criteria" fordetermining well-known mark status. What aretheother
relevant criteria?
Therelevantcriteriafordeterminingwell-knownmarkstatusintheproposalforanewtrademark
lawareasfollows:
- useofthemark intheSlovak Republic;
- general notoriety;
- reference toalinkwiththeholder ofawell-known mark.
According totheproposed amended version oftheAct,well-known trademarks willnotbe
subject toanyother additional conditions. Themanner astohowthetrademark becomes well-known
isnotstated bylaw. According torecent practice oftheIndustrial Property Office oftheSlovak
Republic, theadvertising ofthetrademark isoneofthemethods ofhowatrademark becomes
well-known.
8. Section 15(4) oftheSlovak Trademark Lawpermits atrademark owner toaskthecustoms
authorities towithhold theentry ofgoods bearing infringing marks. Please explain howthelawof
theSlovak Republic implements andapplies theprovisions regarding border measures found inTRIPS
Articles 51to60withregard tosuchgoods bearing infringing trademarks.
Pursuant to§15.4 ofActNo.174/1988 Coll. onTrademarks, currently inforce, attherequest
oftheowner ofatrademark, thecustoms authorities shallnotclear goods whose markings infringe
theowner 'srights afforded bythisLaw. Theowner ofthetrademark shallprovide evidence ofhis
rights bypresenting anextract from theRegister. When preparing theproposal foranewActon
Trademarks, itwasdetermined thattheincorporation ofsuchpractices intheActwould apply only
totrademarks. Therefore, anewseparate Actisunder preparation which shallapply alsotoother
industrial property andauthor 'srights items. Thepreparation ofthisActisunder theresponsibility
oftheMinistry ofFinance oftheSlovak Republic, thepowers ofwhich encompass alsocustoms
authorities.
9. Article 18(1) oftheSlovak Trademark Lawspecifies thatonefactor inthedetermination of
whether amark is“wellknown ”isthe“extent orlongduration ofitsutilization forhigh-quality goods
orservices ”.Please explain howthisfactor isapplied inpractice and,inparticular, whether the“high
quality ”evaluation canpreclude recognition ofamark aswell-known mark.
Pursuant to§18(1) ofActNo.174/1988 Coll. onTrademarks, there isnotonlythecriteria
oflongduration oftheutilization butalsoofhigh-quality ofgoods orservices. Such aprovision,
although, wasnotincorporated intotheproposal foranewAct. According totheexisting common
practice, suchprovision applies onlytotheextent andduration oftheuse.TheOffice didnotrequire,
according totherecent law,anydocuments confirming thehighquality ofgoods andservices.IP/Q2/SVK/1
Page8
[Follow-up question from theUnited States]
Please confirm thatthenewlawwillnotinclude arequirement thatawell-known mark beof
"high quality".
Yes,wecanconfirm this.
10. Section 19(1) oftheSlovak Trademark Lawrequires strictcompliance oftheuseofthetrademark
intheforminwhich 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.
According tothecurrent Trademark Law, thetrademark holder andthecontractual userof
suchtrademark shallberequired tousethemark instrict compliance withtheform inwhich ithas
beenregistered. Theproposal foranewActdiffers fromthewording oftheexisting Act.According
totheproposal foranewlaw,theOffice shallpermit modification ofthetrademark, attherequest
oftheowner thereof, withapplicable thetradename orheadquarters, theresidence orplace ofbusiness,
inorder toreflect changes thathaveoccurred since theregistration ofthetrademark intheRegister,
provided thatthemodification brings thedataintolinewiththetruesituation without changing the
general nature ofthetrademark. Thenewwording isinfullcompliance withArticle 5C(2) ofthe
Paris Convention. Theobligation which follows from Article 5C(2) oftheParis Convention isnot
restricted intheproposal foranewTrademark Law.
11. Section 23(1)(b) oftheSlovak Trademark Lawallows marks tobecancelled iftheowner does
notprovide a“goodreason ”forthenon-use. Please explain howthisprovision complies withTRIPS
Article 19.1which requires thatWTOMembers recognize certain circumstances thatariseindependently
ofthewillofthetrademark owner asbeing valid reasons fornon-use toprevent cancellation ofa
registration fornon-use. Also, please explain thetypes ofcircumstances thatwould besufficient to
satisfy thisprovision (i.e., “good reasons ”fornon-use), including, where relevant, results of
administrative orjudicial decisions addressing thisissue.
Thecurrent Trademark Law, andalsotheproposal ofthenewone,provide thepossibility
tocancel thetrademark foritsnon-use ifthetrademark holder hasnotgiven agood reason forthe
failure touse.Legitimate reasons fornon-use ofatrademark arecircumstances arisen independently
onthewillofthetrademark holder orcircumstances which werenotcaused byhisnegligence. Such
circumstances include, among others, importation regulations, operation ofnatural forces, delay in
theregistration ofthenewholder, etc. Thefailure ofexistence oflegitimate reasons shall cause
cancellation ofthetrademark.
12. Please describe themethods bywhich industrial designs areprotected intheSlovak Republic,
inparticular:
(a) theformorforms ofintellectual property usedtoprotect thedesign
(e.g., patent, copyright, suigeneris);
(b) theconditions thatmustbesatisfied toobtain thegrant ofsuchprotection
(e.g., whether designs mustbenewororiginal andtheparameters ofthese concepts),
andabriefdescription oftheregistration orgranting procedure;
(c) thenature oftherights granted andthetermofprotection provided;IP/Q2/SVK/1
Page9
(d) thenature ofremedies available totheowner ofeachtypeofprotection, including a
description oftheconditions thatmaybeimposed (e.g., whether commercial useis
required); and
(e) whether anyexceptions toprotection orrights existforeachtypeofintellectual property
involved.
Industrial designs aregranted protection pursuant toActNo.527/1990 Coll. onInventions,
Industrial Designs andRationalization Proposals. Theprotection isgranted onthebasisofaCertificate
onregistration oftheindustrial design issued bytheIndustrial Property Office.
(a) Anindustrial design within themeaning ofthisLawshall betheappearance ofaproduct
thatisnewandsusceptible ofindustrial application. Theappearance ofaproduct shallbe
constituted byanytwo-orthree-dimensional getupconsisting, inparticular, intheshape,
contours, ornamentation orinthearrangement ofthecolours oftheproduct orinacombination
ofsuchfeatures. Thebasic termforgranting protection forindustrial designs isnovelty. An
industrial design shallbedeemed tobenewifitisunknown, prior tothedateonwhich the
applicant 'spriority right begins, intheSlovak Republic orabroad byanymeans generally
available tothepublic. Theother termisindustrial application. Anindustrial design shall
bedeemed susceptible ofindustrial application ifitcanserve asamodel forrepeated
manufacture.
(b) TheOffice shall perform formal andsubstantive examination and,ifthesubject matter
oftheindustrial design complies withstatutory requirements, theOffice shallenter theind
ustrial design inaregister, thenissue aCertificate toitsholder andshallpublish anotice of
theregistration oftheindustrial design intheOfficial Bulletin. Otherwise, theOffice shall
refuse theapplication.
(c) Theholder ofaregistered industrial design hasexclusive rights tothedesign. Themaximum
protection period is15years.
(d) Pursuant to§62oftheActNo.527/1990 Coll. onInventions, Industrial Designs and
Rationalization Proposals, theOffice shallcancel anindustrial design ifitascertains, after
registration, thattheconditions forregistering anindustrial design laiddown bythisLawwere
notmet. Theholder ofanindustrial design mayclaim hisrights deriving fromtheindustrial
design according toprovisions oftheCivil andPenal Code. TheLawdoesnotrequire the
commercial useofanindustrial design.
(e) Thecurrently validLawdoesnotprovide anyexceptions toprotection orrights foreachtype
ofintellectual property involved. Inthewording ofActNo.527/1990, §60,thelimitation
ofeffects ofindustrial designs relates onlytoprioruserrights ("theprioruser" -aperson who
hasalready worked thedesign independently ofthecreator orowner orwhohasmade
preparations therefor).
13. Please explain howtextile designs areprotected under yourlaw.
Theprotection oftextile designs andfashion intheform ofanindustrial design provide
ActNo.527/1990Coll.onInventions,IndustrialDesignsandRationalizationProposals.Theprotection
oftextile designs isprovided under thesame conditions asforother industrial designs. Theregistered
industrial design hastofulfiltheconditions resulting fromthisLaw-anexternal design which isnew
andsusceptible toindustrial application. Theprotection ofanindustrial design arises aftertheindustrialIP/Q2/SVK/1
Page10
design isregistered intheRegister ofindustrial designs. Theprotection oftextile designs isprovided
incompliance withArticle 25.2oftheTRIPS Agreement.
14. Please indicate whether geographical indications forwines andspirits aregiven additional
protection compared togeographical indications forother goods. Ifnot,please explain howSlovak
lawisconsistent withTRIPS Article 23.
According toActNo.159/1973 Coll. ontheProtection ofAppellation ofOrigin ofProducts,
there isprovided fortheprotection ofwines andspirits incompliance withArticle 23oftheTRIPS
Agreement bymeans ofeither theregistration ofanappellation oforigin ofaproduct intotheRegister
oftheIndustrial Property Office orunfair competition procedures (according totheTrade Code).
Nooneshallhavetherighttomisuse aregistered appellation oforigin, inparticular tomisappropriate
itortoimitate itevenwhere thetrueorigin oftheproduct isindicated orwhere theappellation isused
inatranslated oraltered formifdespite thedifference there isariskofconfusion, orevenwhere the
appellation isaccompanied byterms suchas"kind", "type", "make", "imitation" orthelike. A
registered appellation oforigin maynotbeusedasthegeneric name ofaproduct. Therighttouse
aregistered appellation oforigin maynotbelicensed.
According totheproposal foranewTrademark Law,theOffice shallnotregister asignidentical
toatrademark thatisapplied fororregistered byanother owner foridentical orsimilar goods orservices
withearlier priority rights, orincluding elements ofamark thatisapplied fororregistered withwhich
itisliable tocause confusion. TheOffice shallcancel thetrademark fromtheRegister ifthetrademark
hasbeenregistered inviolation ofthisLaw. Thesame isvalid fortrademark registration ofwines
aswell, which contains orconsists ofageographical indication identifying wines, orforspirits which
contains orconsists ofgeographical indication identifying spirits; theyshallbeaccording toabove-
mentioned Actrefused orinvalidated. Theprotection forwines andspirits istherefore incompliance
withArticle 23oftheTRIPS Agreement.
15. Section 16(3) oftheSlovak 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 intheSlovak Republic. Please explain howthisprovision ofSlovak
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.
Question 15isnotrelevant tocurrent Slovak legislation andrefers probably toCzech valid
legislation. ActNo.174/1988 Coll. onTrademark in§16.3 doesnotinclude theprovision according
towhich theowner ofatrademark acquiesces totheuseofanidentical orconfusingly similar sign
which, intheperiod oftwoyears before thefiling oftheapplication, hasbecome characteristic for
theidentical orsimilar goods orservices ofitsholder, suchusebeing made bythatholder intheSlovak
Republic.
According totheproposal foranewTrademark Law, therestrictions ofperformance of
trademark lawcould betaken intoconsideration onlyunder strictly defined conditions. Thiswould
grantprotectionfortheholderofanunregisteredtrademarkwhichwassuccessfulincommercialrelations
andthesign, intheperiod oftwoyears before thefiling oftheapplication, hasbecome characteristic
foridentical orsimilar goods orservices ofitsholder, suchusebeing made bythatholder intheSlovak
Republic. Theeffect ofrestriction oftheregistration against theholder ofanunregistered trademark
isnotconsidered asinfringement oftherights ofthetrademark owner andthisisinconformity with
Article 16.1oftheTRIPS Agreement.IP/Q2/SVK/1
Page11
16. Section 15(2) oftheSlovak 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 Slovak lawand,ifnot,howthispractice isconsistent withTRIPS Article 16.1.
Pursuant toActNo.174/1988 Coll. onTrademarks, theowner ofatrademark willhavethe
exclusive righttoaffixhismark onthegoods orservices forwhich ithasbeenregistered ortouse
itinrelation tosuchgoods orservices. Theproposal foranewActshallgivesuchentitlement also
withregard tosimilar products andservices forthetrademark thathasbeenregistered. Thenew
Trademark Lawwillreflect thisconcern.
17. Section 7(4)oftheSlovak 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.
Asisstated inActNo.174/1988 Coll., §7,sub-part 4,acollective mark mayonlybeused
inconjunction withanindividual mark orlegalperson name. Authorities areaware ofthenecessity
toimprove thatpartoftheTrademark Actwhich deals withtheissue contained inArticle 20ofthe
TRIPS Agreement. Infact,theproposal foranewAct,including thequestion ofcollective trademarks
which willnotbesubject toanyconditions, willfullyrespond tothisconcern.