RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/C/W/84
23October 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-4642)
Original: English Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
REVIEW OFLEGISLATION ONENFORCEMENT
Questions Posed byNewZealand
Bymeans ofacommunication from thePermanent Delegation ofNew Zealand,
dated9October1997,theSecretariathasreceivedthefollowingquestionsfortheEuropeanCommunities
andtheirMember States.
_______________
THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND THEIR MEMBER STATES
European Communities
Table 2ofDocument IP/C/W/75 (14July1997), identifies foreachMember State ofthe
European Communities anumber ofagencies under theheading "Filing ofComplaint". Wewould
begrateful toknow whether thismeans thatthese agencies self-initiate complaints, orwhether they
areresponsible onlytoreceive complaints? Ineachcase,could theEuropean Communities please specify
whether private parties ortheauthorities areresponsible forinitiating action toenforce protection of
geographical indications.
Germany
Thefollowing questions relate toGermany 'sresponses1totheChecklist ofIssues onEnforcement:
Preliminary Remarks (page 1):CanGermany confirm whether theTrade Mark Lawisthe
onlyoneamong those listed which relates toprotection ofwinegeographical indications (GIs)?
Response 9:Could Germany clarify towhat extent administrative action isapplicable to
enforcement ofwinegeographical indications. Response 9advises that(inrelation tocivilprotection)
"proceedings relating toviolation ofanintellectual property rightarenotcarried outasadministrative
proceedings" (except toseize items attheborder). Andresponse 18saysthatingeneral customs
authorities mayonlyact(toseizearticles) ontherequest oftherightholder (rather thanontheirown
initiative). However, response 21andsubsequent replies indicate thatallintellectual property rights
arealsoprotected bycriminal proceedings, including indications ofgeographical origin. Doesthisimply
thatadministrative action isusedtoenforce protection through criminal proceedings?
1IP/N/6/DEU/1IP/C/W/84
Page2
Response 22:Thisnotes thatcriminal prosecution ofIPRviolations occurs onlyuponrequest,
unless:
(a) theprosecution authorities deem thatexofficio prosecution isjustified inviewofthe
particular public interest; or
(b) theoffender actsbywayoftrade.
Could Germany please specify further:
(i) thecircumstances, ifany,inwhich exofficio prosecution would bedeemed
justified inthecaseofwinegeographical indications;
(ii) what action "bywayoftrade" covers. Inthelatter case, would exofficio
prosecution beautomatic?
Inaddition, wewould begrateful ifGermany could advise whether, intheabsence of(a)and
(b),arequest alone issufficient toinitiate acriminal prosecution.
Response 24:Could Germany indicate when thepossibility oftwoyears'imprisonment or
afineforunlawful useofageographical indication (asaresult ofcriminal prosecution) isapplicable
andwhen civilpenalties apply.
Italy
Thefollowing questions relate toItaly'sresponses2totheChecklist ofIssues onEnforcement:
Response 9:There isnoresponse tothisquestion onadministrative procedures andremedies.
Wewould begrateful ifItalycould complete thispartofthechecklist forenforcement ofprotection
ofwinegeographical indications.
Response 15:Wewould begrateful ifItalycould confirm whether ornotprohibition onrelease
intofreecirculation bytheCustoms authorities applies towine bearing misleading geographical
indications.
Response 21:Wewould begrateful ifItalycould clarify whether anyoftheprovisions listed
inthisreplyapplycriminalproceduresandpenaltiesrelatingtomisleadingwinegeographicalindications.
Spain
Thefollowing questions relate toSpain 'sresponses3totheChecklist ofIssues onEnforcement:
Response 14:Could Spain advise whether thepractice ofCustoms officers informing the
Department upon detecting goods presumed tobecounterfeit orpirated, forwhich action hasbeen
granted, hasanyapplicability towinebearing misleading geographical indications, andifso,identify
therelevant legislation anddescribe thepractice followed.
2IP/N/6/ITA/1
3IP/N/6/ESP/1IP/C/W/84
Page3
Response15:WewouldbegratefulifSpaincouldclarifywhetherornotactionmayberequested
inthecaseofwinebearing misleading geographical indications.
United Kingdom
Thefollowing questions relate totheUnited Kingdom 'sresponses4totheChecklist ofIssues on
Enforcement:
Introductory Remarks (pages l-2): Isitcorrect toassume from these Introductory Remarks
thattheCommon Lawof"passing off"isthelegal mechanism forprotection ofwine geographical
indications?
Response 9:Thisstates that"intheUK,administrative remedies forIPRscanbeconsidered
tobenon-existent asapractical matter". CantheUKconfirm thatthisstatement covers wine
geographical indications? Could theUKalsoplease explain therelationship ofthisstatement tothe
reference intable2ofdocument IP/C/W/75 of14July1997 totheWine Standard Board andlocal
authorities inthecolumn headed "Filing ofComplaint"? Dothose bodies receive complaints initiated
byprivate parties oraretheyresponsible forexofficio enforcement ofwinegeographical indications?
Response 15(1): Thisnotes thatinrelation toinfringement ofIPRstheonlyspecific provisions
forCustoms tosuspend therelease ofgoods areinrespect ofcounterfeit trademarked andpirated goods.
Does thismean thatthere arenospecific provisions which enforce protection ofwinegeographical
indications attheborder?
Response 21:Thisnotes thatanoffence under section 92oftheTrade Marks Act1994cannot
becommitted unless "thegoods inquestion aregoods forwhich themark isregistered orunless the
trademark hassuchareputation intheUnited Kingdom thatitsunauthorized usewould takeunfair
advantage of,orbedetrimental to,thedistinctive character ortherepute ofthetrademark". How
isthisprovision enforced, andwould itenvisage anystateenforcement toprevent misleading useof
awinegeographical indication?
4IP/N/6/GBR/1