RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/Q2/AUT/1
13August 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-3389)
Original: English Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
REVIEW OFLEGISLATION ONTRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATIONS AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS
Austria1
ThepresentdocumentreproducesthequestionsputtothedelegationofAustriaandtheresponses
given inthereview oflegislation ontrademarks, geographical indications andindustrial designs at
theCouncil '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?
Yes,applicants fromWTO Members mayclaim priorities fromearlier trademark applications
inanyother WTO Member under therequirements laiddown intheParis Convention.
II. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYTHE UNITED STATES
Trademarks
General observations
AsAustria isamember totheParis Convention since 1909, theAustrian legalsystem with
respect tomarks corresponds withtheTRIPS Agreement onalargescaleandoftenestablishes protection
standards beyond thestandards required bytheTRIPS Agreement. Nevertheless, already in1995efforts
havebeenundertaken toamend theAustrian Trademark Protection Acttocomply expressis verbis with
theprovisions oftheTRIPS Agreement andtoclarify some wordings, butthelegislative procedure
hadtoberestarted atthebeginning of1996duetoadissolvement ofParliament andfollowing elections.
1Asregards lawsandregulations relevant totheareas under review asnotified byAustria under Article 63.2, reference
ismade todocuments IP/N/1/AUT/1, including Revisions andAddenda, IP/N/1/AUT/T/1 andIP/N/1/AUT/D/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/AUT/1
Page2
Atthetimebeing, anewdrafttoamend theTrademarks Protection Acthasbeensentoutto
interested circles forexamination andcomments. Parliamentary treatment isforeseen forthebeginning
of1997.
1. Articles 1(1)and16(2) oftheAustrian Trademark Protection Lawindicate that“special signs”
andfigures,letters,words,pictorialformsandcharactersarecapableofbeingregisteredastrademarks.
Thelistdoesnotinclude certain types ofsigns, suchascolours, combinations ofcolours, oralpha-
numeric marks. Please explain whether these types ofsigns arecapable ofconstituting atrademark
under Austrian lawand,ifnot,please explain howthispractice isconsistent withArticle 15.1ofthe
TRIPS Agreement.
Article 1(1)oftheAustrian Trademark Protection Lawdefines "marks" asany"special signs
usedtodistinguish goods orservices ofanenterprise fromsimilar goods orservices ofotherenterprises"
andtherefore doesnotexclude anytypeofcapable signs -e.g.colours orcombinations ofcolours
from registration. Thequoted Article 16(2), second sentence, which reads infulllength:
"When amarkdoesnotconsist exclusively offigures, letters orwords having nospecial pictoral
form orclaim toparticular characters, areproduction ofthemark shallbesubmitted,"
onlyregulatestheformalrequirementforapplicationsofso-called"picturemarks"or"word-picturemarks"
ormarks where aspecial claim toparticular characters ismade. Astheaforementioned provisions,
especially Article 16,donotcontain anexclusive listofsigns capable ofregistration andtherefore
allow anysigncapable ofdistinguishing tobeeligible forregistration asatrademark, theAustrian
practice isconsistent withArticle 15.1oftheTRIPS Agreement.
2. Article 3oftheAustrian Trademark Protection Lawappears tocondition theregistration of
amark forgoods andservices onthemark being produced intheapplicant ’senterprise orinthe
enterprise oftheacquirer. Thisprovision doesnotappear totakeintoaccount thepractice ofmany
modern businesses ofhaving goods produced byothers under contract, suchgoods thenbeing sold
bearing thetrademark. Please explain whether thisprovision applies tosuchsituations, andhowit
iscompatible withSection 2ofPartIIoftheTRIPS Agreement, Articles 15.4and20inparticular.
Article 3oftheAustrian Trademark Protection Lawrequires theapplicant oracquirer ofa
trademark tohaveanykindofenterprise thegoods orservices claimed mayemerge from, beitin
theform ofproduction, saleorproviding aservice.
Thisregulation therefore deals withconditions concerning theapplicant andhisattributes and
doesnotformanobstacle forregistration orregistration oftransfer based onconditions deriving from
thenature ofthegoods andservices.
Layingdownrequirementsinthesphereoftheapplicantortheacquirer,itisalsonotinconsistent
withArticle 20oftheTRIPS Agreement, which requires thattheuse-nottheregistration -ofa
trademark inthecourse oftrade shallnotbeunjustifiably encumbered byspecial requirements, such
asusewithanother trademark, etc.,asitstipulates nospecial requirements fortheuseofthetrademark.
Nevertheless, thedrafttoamend theTrademark Law, which isunder examination atthetime
being, proposes thedeletion oftheregulation inquestion.
3. Article4(1)4oftheAustrianTrademarkProtectionLawmakesunregistrablesigns“whichcontain
matter liable tocause annoyance orotherwise infringe public order ...”.Please provide examples
ofsigns thatfallwithin thisprohibition andexplain howthispractice isconsistent withTRIPS
Article 15.1.IP/Q2/AUT/1
Page3
Thisprovision isfullyconsistent withArticle 15.2oftheTRIPS Agreement which states that:
"Paragraph 1shallnotbeunderstood toprevent aMember from denying registration ofa
trademark onother grounds, provided thattheydonotderogate from theprovisions ofthe
Paris Convention (1967)."
Article 6quinquies B(3)provides thattrademarks maybedenied registration "...when they
arecontrary tomorality orpublic order ...".
Based onthisprovision theAustrian authorities haverefused toregister ,interalia,trademarks
which might havecaused annoyance toreligious feelings ordiscriminated sexes, races ornations.
Forexample, applications fortheword "Jesus" forjeans (Decision oftheBoard ofAppeals
ofthePatent Office, 1977) oratrademark called "Japs" forinsecticides havebeenturned down in
thepast.
4. Article 10oftheAustrian Trademark Protection Lawstates thattherighttoamark doesnot
preclude another enterprise fromusing thesamesigntodistinguish “other”kinds ofgoods andservices.
Please explain whether usebyathirdparty ofthesame orasimilar signforother kinds ofgoods or
services canbeprevented bytheowner ofamarkwhere suchusewould suggest thataconnection exists
between those goods orservices andtheowner ofthemark andwould cause injury tothatowner.
Ifthisisnotpossible,pleaseexplainhowthisprovisionofAustrianlawcomplieswithTRIPSArticle16.1.
ThisArticle inquestion iscurrently under examination tobeamended inorder tocomply with
Article 16.1oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Theproposed drafttext,which isinaccordance withCommunity Law, reads asfollows:
"§10. Theright toamark shallnotpreclude another enterprise from using thesame sign
todistinguish dissimilar goods andservices, unless theregistered trademark isdomestically
well-known andtheusewithout duecause ofthetrademark fordissimilar goods orservices
would takeunfair advantage oforbedetrimental tothedistinctive character orthereputation
oftheearlier trademark."
Theowner ofawell-known mark mayalready prevent theuseofanidentical orsimilar sign
fordissimilar goods andservices byfiling anaction withtheCommercial Courts based ontheprovisions
oftheLawagainst Unfair Competition, asAustrian jurisprudence anddoctrine tendtofavour the
application oftherelevant provisions (i.e.Articles 2and9)under thecondition thattheuseofthe
signwould takeunfair advantage ofthereputation oftheearlier trademark.
Nevertheless, deliberations havebeenstarted toamend theLawagainst Unfair Competition
insuchawaythattheprotection ofwell-known trademarks ortrademarks withareputation evenin
regard todissimilar goods orservices isregulated, expressis verbis .
5. Article 14oftheAustrian Trademark Protection Lawspecifies that“signs”willbetreated as
similar ifthere isa“likelihood ofconfusion intrade”.Please explain howthedetermination of
“likelihood ofconfusion intrade”ismade, andinparticular withregard togoods orservices. Please
explain howthisstandard differs from thelikelihood ofconfusion standard embodied inTRIPS
Article 16.1.
Toourpointofview, thestandard embodied inArticle 16.1oftheTRIPS Agreement stipulates
onlythatalikelihood ofconfusion shallbepresumed incaseoftheuseofanidentical signforidenticalIP/Q2/AUT/1
Page4
goods orservices. There arenoother conditions todefine "likelihood ofconfusion" when non-identical
signs havetobecompared.
Theabove-mentionedTRIPSstandardisimplemented,interalia,byArticle30oftheTrademark
Protection Law, byauthorizing theowner ofanearlier registered mark tofileanapplication for
cancellation ofayounger, identical mark registered foridentical goods andservices.
Additionally, theLawagainst Unfair Competition provides inArticle 9thepossibility toprevent
theuseofayounger, identical signforidentical goods andservices.
Concerning non-identical signs, theAustrian jurisprudence andadministration -through the
Nuility Section ofthePatent Office -havedeveloped aspecial casuistry determining thelikelihood
ofconfusion.
Some ofthebasic criteria tobetaken intoconsideration when deciding whether there isa
likelihood ofconfusion between twosigns arethefollowing:
- thetypeofsigns tobecompared; asArticle 14states, there mayalsobealikelihood
ofconfusion between asignconsisting onlyofaword andanother signconsisting of
apicture;
- asfarassigns consisting solely ofwords areconcerned, iftheyaresimilar inshape,
sounding ormeaning (e.g."Stern" ="Stella");
- iftheolder signforms partoftheyounger one; etc.
6. Article31oftheAustrianTrademarkProtectionLawauthorizesapersontoapplyforcancellation
ofamark foridentical orsimilar goods orservices onhisownonthebasis ofanunregistered mark
thatisrecognized inthetrade asdistinctive ofhisenterprise ’sgoods orservices atthetimethecontested
markwasfiled. Thesection doesnotappear toauthorize suchachallenge where thegoods orservices
arenotsimilar tothose oftheparty thatischallenging theregistered mark. Please explain howa
party would challenge theregistration ofamarkfordissimilar goods orservices where thatmark“would
indicate aconnection between those goods orservices andtheowner oftheregistered trademark ”and
would likely cause damage tothechallenging party, asrequired byArticle 16.3oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Article 31oftheAustrian Trademark Protection Lawauthorizes theapplication forcancellation
ofamark byanyone whoproves thattheunregistered signheisusing foridentical orsimilar goods
andservices wasrecognized inthetrade concerned asdistinctive ofhisenterprise 'sgoods orservices
atthetimewhen thecontested mark -identical orsimilar (Article 14)tohisownunregistered mark -
wasfiled. Thisprovision isconsistent withArticle 6bisoftheParis Convention. Article 16.3ofthe
TRIPS Agreement covers theprotection ofregistered well-known marks which under certain
circumstances should beprotected alsoinregard todissimilar goods andservices. Therefore the
provision inquestion -dealing withtheprotection ofunregistered signs -seems nottobeinconsistent
withArticle 16.3oftheTRIPS Agreement primarily regulating theprotection ofalready registered
marks, which havegained aspecial status. Topartly cover theobligation ofArticle 16.3-asfaras
cancellation ofmarks isconcerned -anamendment toArticle 30oftheTrademark Protection Lawis
proposed inthedraftnowbeing under examination duetothesame reasons asalready mentioned in
regard toArticle 10(seeanswers toquestion 4above). Theamended textwould readasfollows:
"(2) Application forthecancellation ofamark maybefiledbytheowner ofamark filed
earlier fordissimilar goods andservices andstillinforce, which isdomestically wellknownIP/Q2/AUT/1
Page5
andwhere theuseoftheyounger mark would takeunfair advantage oforbedetrimental to
thedistinctive character orthereputation ofthewell-known mark."
7. Article 33apermits cancellation ofamarkfornon–useafterithasbeenregistered foraminimum
offiveyears. Sub-paragraph (2)thenprecludes suchcancellation incases inwhich theowner can
justify suchnon–usebecause of“statutory restrictions ontrade inthegoods orservices ...,ifitis
recognized thataworthwhile interest exists ingiving protection inAustria inviewofserious useof
thesignabroad orforother reasons worthy ofconsideration ”.Please explain thetypes ofactions
thatfallwithin thisdefinition, providing examples, ifpossible, ofsituations where thisauthority has
beenapplied, including results ofrelevant administrative orjudicial proceedings.
When introducing thisprovision in1977, theexplanatory notes listed asanexample forthe
justification ofnon-use thecaseiftheuseofthetrademark would beinfringing State Monopolies.
Itwasalsostated thatthequestion, ifthereisaworthwhile interest inmaintaining protection,
hastobesolved onacase-to-case basis.
In1984, theAustrian High Court ruled thatnon-use ofatrademark fortextiles wasjustified,
asthe(foreign) owner, inorder tosellcigarettes under thistrademark inAustria, hadtosignacontract
with theMonopoly-Board, urging himtousethetrademark only inregard tocigarettes
(OGH, 27November 1994).
Asafurther example, adecision oftheSupreme Patent andTrademark Chamber maybequoted,
statingthatthenon-useofatrademarkforpharmaceuticalswasjustified,astheprocedureforcertification
andregistration attheMinistry ofHealth hadnotcome toanendwithin thefiveyears following
registration ofthetrademark.
8. Article 55oftheAustrian Trademark Protection Lawpermits aninjunction tobeissued against
useofamark thathasbeenregistered formore thanfiveyears butonlyifitisproven thatnogrounds
forcancellation onthegrounds ofnon–useexist. Please explain howthisprovision isconsistent with
Article 16.1oftheTRIPS Agreement.
TheArticle inquestion permits aninjunction incriminal procedures before theCriminal Courts,
ifthere hadbeenaninfringement ofdistinctive signs.
Iftherequest foraninjunction isbased onaregistered trademark which hadbeenregistered
more thanfiveyears agoandtherefore should havebeenusedinthemeantime nottoruntheriskof
being cancelled onthegrounds ofArticle 33a,aproof hastobeproduced thattherequested usehas
taken place sothatthere isobviously noreason tocancel thetrademark duetonon-use.
Asthisprovision onlyregulates thegranting ofinjunctions incriminal procedures, itconstitutes
norestriction totherights mentioned inArticle 16.1oftheTRIPS Agreement.
9. Please explain howwell-known marks pertaining toservices areprotected under Austrian law
consistent withtherequirements ofArticle 16.2.
According toArticle 1(1)oftheAustrian Trademarks Protection Law, tradeandservice marks
arecovered equally bytheprovisions ofthisAct,Article 1(1)defining marks asspecial signs to
distinguish goods andservices ofenterprises. Based onthisdefinition, Articles 30to33c,which deal
withgrounds forcancellation, specially mention marks forservices, expressis verbis .Theintended
amendment toArticle 30(seeanswer toquestion 6above) therefore covers well-known marks pertaining
toservices aswell.IP/Q2/AUT/1
Page6
10. Please explain howAustria provides protection forwell-known marks relating toservices, as
isrequired byTRIPS Article 16.2. Inaddition, please explain whether knowledge ofthetrademark
intherelevant sector ofthepublic istaken intoconsideration, including knowledge obtained asaresult
ofpromotion ofthemark, andhowtheAustrian practice conforms toTRIPS Article 16.2.
Seeanswer toquestion 9above.
Marks forservices enjoy equally protection asmarks forgoods according toArticle 31ofthe
Trademark Protection LawandofArticle 9(3)oftheLawagainst Unfair Competition.
Asitmaybeseen from thewording ofArticle 31("... wasrecognized inthetrade
concerned ..."), theknowledge ofthemark intherelevant sector hastobetaken intoconsideration.
Thefact,thatasignisrecognized asdistinctive inthetradeconcerned maypartly result simply
frompromotion butinaccordance withArticle 6bis(1)oftheParis Convention ("...tobewellknown
inthatcountry asbeing already themark ofaperson entitled tothebenefits ofthisconvention and
usedforidentical orsimilar goods.") acertain usemayberequired togainthisstatus.
[Follow-up question from theUS]
Inorder foramarktobedetermined tobewellknown, doesthemarkhavetobeusedinAustria
orisuseanywhere intheworld sufficient?
Inaccordance withArticle 6bis(1)oftheParisConvention ("...tobewellknown inthatcountry
asbeing already themark ofaperson entitled tothebenefits ofthisconvention andusedforidentical
orsimilar goods.") proof ofacertain useinAustria isrequired inorder foramark tobedetermined
tobewell-known withregard toArticle 31oftheAustrian Trademark Protection Law.
Geographical Indications
11. Please explain whether registrations oftrademarks forwines orspirits which contain orconsist
ofageographical indication arerefused orinvalidated withrespect tosuchwines orspirits nothaving
thisorigin, andhowthispractice isconsidered consistent withTRIPS Article 23.2.
Thedrafttexttoamend theAustrian Trademark Protection Lawalready provides theinsertion
ofanexpressis verbis provision fullyconsistent withTRIPS Article 23.2intotheLaw.
Uptotheentry intoforceofthisamendment Article 4(1)4 oftheAustrian Trademark Protection
Lawwillcontinue toform thegeneral legalbasis toexclude trademarks containing orconsisting of
untrue geographical indications from registration.
Theregistration ofamark canbeinvalidated, ifevidence isproduced thatitought nottohave
beenregistered because oftheexistence ofaground forrefusal atthepriority date(seeArticle 33
incombination withArticle 4(1)4 oftheTrademark Protection Law). Thedecision thenhasretroactive
effect tothebeginning oftheperiod ofprotection.
If,afterthedateofitsregistration amark, inconsequence oftheusemade ofitbytheowner
orwithhisconsent becomes liable tomislead thepublic, particularly astothegeographical origin of
thegoods orservices forwhich themark isregistered, thenitcanbecancelled aswell(seeArticle 33c
oftheTrademark Protection Law). Thedecision hasretroactive effect tothedateforwhich deceptive
useofthemark hasbeenproved.IP/Q2/AUT/1
Page7
12. Please explain whether trademarks existing prior totheentryintoforceoftheWTO Agreement
areprotected against appropriation fromactions incident torecognition ofageographical indication.
Ifnot,please explain howthispractice isconsistent withTRIPS Article 24.5.
InAustria, thewhole system ofintellectual property protection ischaracterized bytheprinciples
ofpriority andtheobservance oftherules offaircompetition andofrights acquired ingood faith.
Article 14(2) oftheCouncil Regulation (EEC) No.2081/92 of14July1992ontheprotection
ofgeographical indications anddesignations oforigin foragricultural products andfoodstuffs stipulates
theprecedence ofrelevant trademarks registered ingood faithbefore thedateonwhich applications
forregistration ofadesignation oforigin orgeographical indication waslodged.
Besides, theEuropean Court ofJustice hasalready decided thatgeographical indications have
tobeobserved andprotected intheother ECMember States onlywiththebeginning oftheirprotection
inthecountry oforigin. Together withtheprinciples pointed outatthebeginning, ittherefore seems
unlikely thatbona fideacquired prior rights could beinfluenced bylaterrecognized geographical
indications.
Nevertheless, itistobeadded thatdeliberations arestillgoing oninAustria toinsert amore
specific provision either intotheTrademark Protection LawortheAustrian Lawagainst Unfair
Competition fullyclarifying thelegalsituation inthesense ofTRIPS Article 24.5.
Design Protection
13. Please describe themethods bywhich industrial designs areprotected inAustria, 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;
(d) thenature ofremedies available totheowner ofeachtypeofprotection, including
adescription oftheconditions thatmaybeimposed (e.g., whether commercial use
isrequired); and
(e) whether anyexceptions toprotection orrights existforeachtypeofintellectual property
involved.
(a) InAustria designs areprotected byasuigeneris law,theAustrian LawontheProtection
ofDesigns, BGBl. No.497/1990 asamended byBGBl. No.772/1992 which entered
intoforce on1January 1991andwasnotified according toArticle 63.2oftheTRIPS
Agreement.
(b) Theconditions thatmustbesatisfied toobtain thegrantofsuchprotection areespecially
laiddown inthefollowing Sections oftheabove-mentioned Law: 1,2,3,11,12,13,
14,16,17,18.IP/Q2/AUT/1
Page8
(c) Thenature oftherights granted andthetermofprotection provided arementioned
inSections 4,5and6.
(d) Theremedies available totheowner ofadesign rightareprescribed inSections 34,35
and39.
(e) Theprior user'srightprovided forinSection 5istheonlyexception totherights of
theowner ofadesign right.
Underspecialcircumstances,designs(additionally)maybeprotectedbytheAustrianLawagainst
Unfair Competition orbytheAustrian Copyright Law. Asfarastherequirements arefulfilled,
designs canbeprotected byeachofthese types ofintellectual property.
14. Please explain howtextile designs areprotected under yourlaw.
Textile designs areprotected inthesame wayasother designs. Therefore, theycanalsobe
combined inacollective application covering uptofiftyspecimens (Section 13oftheAustrian Law
ontheProtection ofDesigns). Collective applications arecheaper thansingle applications (Section 40).