RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE IP/Q2/ESP/1
14October 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-4448)
Original: English Council forTrade-Related Aspects
ofIntellectual Property Rights
REVIEW OFLEGISLATION ONTRADEMARKS, GEOGRAPHICAL
INDICATIONS AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS
Spain1
Thepresent document reproduces thequestions puttothedelegation ofSpain andtheresponses
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?
Spain recognizes arightofpriority based onatrademark application filedinorforSpain that
claims sucharightonthebasis ofaprior application filedinanyWTO Member.
Justification: TheUnion right ofpriority (Article 4oftheParis Convention) hasbeen
incorporated intheTRIPS Agreement byimplication, according toArticle 2.1oftheAgreement, and
consequently applies toallnationals ofWTO Members, whoaregranted thetreatment provided for
inArticle 1.3oftheAgreement, which byimplication includes theUnion rightofpriority.
Moreover, pursuant tothemost-favoured-nation clause (Article 4oftheTRIPS Agreement),
nationals ofWTO Members must begranted thesame advantages asthose granted tothenationals
ofanyother country, inthisparticular casetheright ofpriority recognized tonationals ofStates
belonging totheParis Union.
1Asregards lawsandregulations relevant totheareas under review asnotified bySpain under Article 63.2ofthe
Agreement, reference ismade todocuments IP/N/1/ESP/1/Rev.1, IP/N/1/ESP/1/Rev.1/Add.1, IP/N/1/ESP/T/1-2,
IP/N/1/ESP/G/1-4 andIP/N/1/ESP/I/1-2.
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/ESP/1
Page2
II. REPLIES TOQUESTIONS POSED BYTHE UNITED STATES
1. Article 2ofSpain ’sTrademark Lawsetsforth thetypes ofsigns thatarecapable ofbeing
registered asatrademark. Thelistofsignsdoesnotinclude colour marks. Additionally, Article 11.1(g)
specifically prohibits theregistration ofcolour “initself”unless thecolour isdefined byagiven form.
Given these twoSections, please explain howSpanish lawimplements Article 15.1oftheTRIPS
Agreement which provides thatregistrable signs mayconsist ofcombinations ofcolours.
Yes,itistruethatArticle 2oftheSpanish Trademark Lawdoesnotinclude "combinations
ofcolours" among thesigns capable ofconstituting atrademark, unlike Article 15.1oftheTRIPS
Agreement. However, inbothinstances, theenumeration ofsigns capable ofconstituting atrademark
isopen-ended andisnotexhaustive.
Actually, thelistinArticle 2oftheSpanish Trademark Lawstarts withtheword "especially",
anditmaytherefore besaidthatacombination ofcolours could alsobeconsidered asatrademark.
Moreover, thelistofregistrable signs inArticle 15.1oftheTRIPS Agreement isalsoillustrative and
starts with"inparticular".
TheTRIPS Agreement andtheSpanish Trademark Lawalsocoincide inthatcolour initself
isnotprotectable, since amonopoly might beconferred onsuchscarce goods aspurecolours. The
difference between thetwotextsliesintheapproach totheprohibition. Whereas theSpanish Trademark
Lawrejects atrademark on"colour initself" (Article 11.1(g)), theTRIPS Agreement affirms the
protectability ofcolour combinations. These aretwosidesofthesame coin,withthesame underlying
reasoning. Furthermore, theprohibitions onregistration contained inArticle 11areinterpreted
restrictively byexaminers andjudges.
2. Article 4.1oftheSpanish Trademark Lawpermits theproprietor ofatrademark topresent
“reasons justifying thenon-use ofamark”insupport ofcontinued registration despite non-use ofa
trademark. Please explain thecircumstances orsituations thatareconsidered sufficient tosatisfy this
provision, including, where relevant, anyinformation regarding administrative orjudicial decisions
addressing thisissue.
Thereasons justifying thenon-use ofamarkareassessed bythecourts. TheSpanish Trademark
Law, unlike theTRIPS Agreement, doesnotestablish specific criteria forreasons justifying non-use.
However, inpractice, thereasons arefullyinkeeping withthecriterion offorce majeure set
outintheTRIPS Agreement (Article 19,second sentence), inother words, circumstances arising
independently ofthewilloftheowner ofthetrademark which constitute anobstacle touseofthe
trademark.
3. Please explain whether Article 31oftheSpanish Trademark Lawprovides apresumption of
likelihood ofconfusion inthedetermination ofconfusing similarity involving identical marks thatare
usedonidentical goods, asisrequired byArticle 16.1oftheTRIPS Agreement. Ifnot,please explain
whatother basis ofSpanish trademark lawprovides thispresumption.
Article 16.1oftheTRIPS Agreement, firstsentence, fullycoincides withArticle 31.1ofthe
Spanish Trademark Law. Therequirement toexercise jusprohibendi liesinthefactthattheuse"may
bemisleading" (Article 31.1oftheSpanish Trademark Law) or"result inalikelihood ofconfusion"
(Article 16.1oftheTRIPS Agreement).
Thedifference between thetwotextsisthattheSpanish Trademark Lawdoesnotgiveany
example ofwhatismisleading. TheTRIPS Agreement indicates thatthereisalikelihood ofconfusionIP/Q2/ESP/1
Page3
when thesignsforidentical goods orservices areidentical. This"double identity" criterion isfollowed
inSpanish registration andjudicial practice, whereby twoidentical signsforidentical goods orservices
areconsidered incompatible.
Thelegalfoundation forthispractice isanacontrario interpretation ofArticle 12.2ofthe
Spanish Trademark Law. Thus, Article 12.2allows theregistration oftrademarks similar toothers
registered previously inorder todistinguish similar goods orservice, withtheauthorization ofthe
previous rightowner. Ontheother hand, when thesigns areidentical andthegoods orservices also
coincide, thepractice followed -onthebasis ofArticle 12.2oftheSpanish Trademark Law-does
notallow registration.
4. Please explain howSpanish lawpermits theowner ofawell-known mark toprevent theuse
ofaregistered mark ondissimilar goods orservices ifitcanbeestablished thattheuseindicates a
connection between thedissimilar goods orservices andtheowner ofthewell-known mark andwhere
theowner islikely tobedamaged bytheuse,asspecified inArticle 16.3oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Protection ofawell-known markisapproached intheSpanish Trademark Lawfromtwoangles.
First,Article13(c)prohibitstheregistrationof"signsormediawhichinvolveimproperutilization
ofthereputation ofother registered signs ormedia".
Furthermore, Article 35establishes that"theowner ofaregistered trademark maybring before
judicial bodies anyappropriate civilorcriminal action against anyonewhoinjures hisrights andmay
demand thenecessary measures tosafeguard them".
Thepossibility alsoexists ofprotecting awell-known mark under theUnfair Competition Act
of10January 1991. Specifically, theuseofawell-known mark maybeincluded among misleading
actsthatinvolve theriskofassociation (Article 6)andamong actsthatexploit thereputation ofsomeone
else,asunfair utilization ofdistinctive signs (Article 12).
[Follow-up questions from theUS]
(a) Does Spain 'strademark lawplace anyrequirements orconditions onowners ofunregistered
well-known marks whohavebrought anaction against athirdparty'suseoftheunregistered well-known
mark before thataction canproceed?
Toanswer thisquestion, itisnecessary todistinguish between (i)bringing anaction inorder
toprohibit theuseofanunregistered well-known mark, and(ii)anaction brought tocancel aregistered
mark thatconflicts withanunregistered well-known mark.
(i) Inthefirstcase(prohibition ofuse),against thismisleading actcarried outbyathird
party (Article 6,Law3/1991 onUnfair Competition) oragainst thisactofexploitation of
another 'sreputation (Article 12,Law3/1991) theowner oftheunregistered well-known mark
canbring thefollowing actions concerning unfair competition (Article 18,Law3/1991):
primarily, anaction forcessation oftheact,andanaction fordamages.
Noadditional conditions arerequired tobring suchactions.
(ii) Inthesecond case-action forcancellation ofaregistered mark thatconflicts witha
well-known mark -theowner oftheunregistered well-known mark mustatthesametimemake
thecorresponding application forregistration ofthatmark. Inaccordance withArticle 3of
theTrademark Lawof10November 1988, theuserofamark thatiswell-known inSpainIP/Q2/ESP/1
Page4
totheinterested sectors mayapply tothecourts forthecancellation ofaregistered mark for
identical orsimilar products thatcould create confusion withthewell-known mark, provided
suchaction isbrought within fiveyears ofthedateofpublication ofthegranting oftheregistered
mark, unless thelatter hasbeenapplied forinbadfaith, inwhich casetheaction forcancellation
isnotsubject toanytime-limit.
(b) Cantheowner ofawell-known mark prevent theuseofitsmark byathirdparty ondissimilar
goods orservices? Please citetheapplicable article oftheSpanish Trademark Law. Ifnot,howdoes
Spain comply withArticle 16.3oftheTRIPS Agreement?
Inthecaseofawell-known mark (extending itsprotection todissimilar products) apreliminary
distinction mustbemade astowhether ornotthemark isregistered. Ifitisnot,please refertothe
reply tofollow-up question (a)above.
Where thewell-known mark isaregistered mark, protection isprovided under theSpanish
Trademark Lawof10November 1988, which prohibits theregistration asamark ofsigns thatinvolve
benefiting unduly from thereputation ofother registered signs ormedia (Article 13(c)).
Inaddition, Article 35ofthesame Lawestablishes thattheowner ofaregistered mark may
bring theappropriate civilorcriminal actions against persons whoinfringe theirrights andapply for
measures necessary tosafeguard thelatter.
(c) Cantheowner ofanunregistered well-known mark recover damages andobtain injunctive
relief related totheuseofthatmark inSpain?
Asmentioned above (seereply tofollow-up question (a)above), theuserofamark thatis
well-known inSpain totheinterested sectors maytakeaction against theregistration ofamark that
islikely togiverisetoconfusion withthewell-known mark. Tothisend,itmayapply tothecourts
forthecancellation oftheregistered mark (Article 3,Law32/1988 onTrademarks). Thecompetent
jurisdiction isestablished inTitleXIIIofLaw11/1986 onPatents.
Anaction mayalsobebrought forunfair competition, withaclaim fordamages (Article 18).
Inthiscasethehandling ofthecaseisalsogoverned bytheLawofCivil Procedure forproceedings
ofminor jurisdiction, andterritorial jurisdiction isdetermined byArticle 23ofLaw3/1991 onUnfair
Competition.
5. Please explain whether thenature ofgoods orservices towhich atrademark istobeapplied
canserve asanobstacle totheregistration ofthemark under Spanish law. Ifso,please identify and
explain thesubject matter excluded under thisauthority, therelative provisions oftheSpanish Trademark
Lawthatserve asabasis forthese exclusions, andhowthispractice complies withArticle 15.4of
theTRIPS Agreement.
Thenature ofthegoods orservices towhich atrademark istobeapplied shallinnocaseform
anobstacle toregistration ofthetrademark (Article 15.4oftheTRIPS Agreement).
Thisconcept wasincorporated intheSpanish legalsystem fortrademarks aftertheruleemerged
inthecontext oftheParis Convention asArticle 7oftheoriginal textof1883.
Although itisnotexpressly included intheSpanish Trademark Law, itcanbeinferred from
theabsolute prohibitions onregistration (Article 11),which areexhaustive. They donotcontain any
possibility ofexclusion onaccount ofthenature ofthegoods orservices.IP/Q2/ESP/1
Page5
Lastly, inSpain, trademarks aregranted forallgoods andservices oftheinternational
nomenclature established under theNiceAgreement of15June1957.
6. Please explain whether thenature ofgoods orservices towhich atrademark istobeapplied
canserve asanobstacle totheregistration ofthemark under Spanish law. Ifso,please identify and
explain thesubject matter excluded under thisauthority, andtherelative provisions oftheSpanish
lawthatserve asabasis forthese exclusions.
Thisisarepetition oftheprevious question; please refertothereply.
7. Please describe themethods bywhich industrial designs areprotected inSpain, 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 a
description oftheconditions thatmaybeimposed (e.g., whether commercial useis
required); and
(e) whether anyexceptions toprotection orrights existforeachtypeofintellectual property
involved.
(a) Designs maybeprotected by:industrial design, industrially-applied artistic design (resulting
from awork ofapplied arts), utility design orcopyright.
Industrial andartistic designs areregulated bytheIndustrial Property Charter (amended version
oftheRoyal Decree lawof26July1929); utility designs areregulated bythePatent Law,
No.11/1986, of20March 1986; andprotection bycopyright issetoutinRoyal Legislative
Decree 1/1996, of12April 1996, adopting theamended textoftheIntellectual Property Act.4
Protectionbyindustrialdesignorbyartisticdesigncanbeaccumulatedwithcopyrightprotection,
asisseenfrom Article 3.2oftheamended textoftheIntellectual Property Act.
Protection byindustrial design orbyartistic design isnotcompatible withprotection byutility
design, pursuant toArticle 169oftheIndustrial Property Charter.
(b) Therequirement forprotection ofindustrial designs isnovelty. Thisisnotexamined exofficio
intheprocedure forgranting theright(Article 166oftheIndustrial Property Charter) butby
theopposition procedure (Article 188oftheIndustrial Property Charter). While therulesdo
notestablish anyparameter forassessing anovelty, administrative andjudicial practice require
worldwide novelty.
4Thetextoftheamended Intellectual Property Actcanbefound indocument IP/N/1/ESP/C/6.IP/Q2/ESP/1
Page6
Theprocedure follows, mutatis mutandis ,thatfortrademarks (pursuant toArticle 185ofthe
Industrial Property Charter), inthelightofthespecific rules (Article 170oftheIndustrial
Property Charter).
Asfarasartistic designs areconcerned, theprocedure involves some special features, such
as,forexample, therequirement thattheapplication forregistration should beaccompanied
bytheauthor 'sauthorization when theartistic workisnotconsidered asfalling within thepublic
domain (Article 191oftheIndustrial Property Charter).
(c) Therights areexclusive, foratermoftenyears renewable forafurther ten(Article 185of
theIndustrial Property Charter).
(d) Registration grants exclusive rights under terms similar tothose established inArticle 26.1
oftheTRIPS Agreement.
Judicial protection ofindustrial andartistic designs iscovered byTitleXIIIofthePatent Law,
No.11/1986, asestablished inWaiver Provision 1(a)oftheLaw.
Therightremainseffectiveonpaymentoffeesunderconditionsidenticaltothosefortrademarks.
Useofthedesign isnotrequired inorder fortherighttoremain effective, forthiswould be
contrary toArticle 5BoftheParis Convention.
(e) Industrial designs arenoteligible forregistration iftheyarecovered bytheprohibitions on
registration ofapplicable marks (forms imposed forreasons ofatechnical nature; contrary
tothelaw; public order ormorality; forms reproducing orimitating theshield, flag,etc.
ofStates; etc.(Article 187oftheIndustrial Property Charter)).
ThesameArticleestablishesthatpackagingormodelscontainingdesignsconstitutingtrademarks
ornames arenoteligible forregistration.
8. Please explain howtextile designs areprotected under yourlaw.
Textile designs areprotected inthesamewayasdesigns applied forinother industrial sectors.
Theprocedure israpid, since there isnoexofficio substantive examination.