Bulletin INTA Hosts Judges and Prosecutors from the Middle East and North Africa Association News INTA’s Online Country Guides: Streamline Your Search for Practical Trademark Information Helping Trademark Examiners Understand the Food and Beverage Industry Features Knockoff: The Deadly Trade in Counterfeit Goods Law & Practice ARGENTINA Restaurant Mark Owner Cannot Recover Similar Mark Used for Gardening Products Use of Portion of Registered Mark Defeats Cancellation CANADA PHYSICIAN’S CHOICE Mark Refused as Deceptively Misdescriptive COLOMBIA Colombia to Boost Penalties to IP Infringers EUROPEAN UNION live.eu Annulled Because of Failure to Comply with “Identicality” Requirement GHANA In-House Publication of Trademarks Journal KOREA Proposed Amendments to the Trademark Act NIGERIA Registrar Retires SOUTH AFRICA Gray Goods Importers to Inform Consumers SHATTERPRUFE Held to Be Sufficiently Distinctive SPAIN New Law Implementing EU Directive 48/04 SYRIA New Draft IP Law Introduced UNITED STATES Supreme Court Ends LES PAUL Guitar Trade Dress Controversy INTA Bulletin Board Welcome New Members The Voice of the International Trademark Association July 15, 2006 Vol. 61, No. 13 2 IN THIS ISSUE 4 11 A delegation of 21 judges and prosecutors from Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Yemen visited INTA’s New York of- fice June 20, 2006, to attend a full-day program organized by INTA and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The delegation was briefed on INTA Members’ international anticounter- feiting strategies and the role of the New York City Mayor’s Office of Midtown Enforcement in combating intellectual property theft. In addition to Association members, speakers included Frederico Gebauer of the Mayor’s Office and representatives of the recording and motion picture industries. Darren E. Pogoda represented the USPTO’s Office of Enforce- ment. The visit to INTA offices was part of a three-week program during which delegates studied IP protection at USPTO headquarters and visited law enforcement agencies, courts 6 Ayala Deutsch of NBA Properties discusses anticoun- terfeiting strategies. Ms. Deutsch is Vice Chair of INTA’s Dilution and Well-Known Marks Committee. “Organic” — Says Who? In Canadian and U.S. trademark law and prac- tice, the word “organic” is considered to be an apt, descriptive term that cannot be exclusively appropriated. When it appears as part of a registered mark, the term must be disclaimed apart from the mark. While from a trademark protection standpoint “or- ganic” may be non-distinctive, the meaning producers intend the term to suggest to con- sumers is another story. There is considerable controversy among competitors over the use of “organic,” particularly as part of marks or on labels or packaging of food and food products. The problem is compounded in a global market where product labeling is regulated under different standards in different countries. This article looks at the rules governing the advertis- ing and labeling of “organic” products in the United States and Canada. The United States: All Organic Products Are Divided into Three Parts Since 2002, the “USDA Organic” seal has been available for use on labels or packaging for eligible food grown in the United States or imported from other countries. The U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture (USDA) accredits agents to certify that food bearing the seal has been produced and processed in accordance with national standards in the form of regulations promulgated by the USDA under its National Organic Program. The USDA regulations were developed in part based on recommenda- tions of the National Organic Standards Board and public comment. Generally speaking, there are three categories of food and food products eligible for use of the term “organic” on the principal display panel of the packaging and in advertising: 1. “100 percent organic” and the “USDA Organic” seal may be used to label and advertise food and food products that contain only organi- cally produced ingredients (excluding water and salt). SEE ORGANIC ON PAGE 5 and IP owners around the United States. Among other activities, delegates observed a hearing at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and participat- ed in an alternative dispute resolution exercise. By: Faisal Daudpota, INTA External Relations Coordina- tor, Anticounterfeiting
Transcript
BulletinINTA Hosts Judges and Prosecutors from the Middle East and North Africa Association News
INTA’s Online Country Guides: Streamline Your Search for Practical Trademark Information
Helping Trademark Examiners Understand the Food and Beverage Industry
Features
Knockoff: The Deadly Trade in Counterfeit Goods
Law & Practice
ARGENTINA
Restaurant Mark Owner Cannot Recover Similar Mark Used for Gardening Products
Use of Portion of Registered Mark Defeats Cancellation
CANADA
PHYSICIAN’S CHOICE Mark Refused as Deceptively Misdescriptive
COLOMBIA
Colombia to Boost Penalties to IP Infringers
EUROPEAN UNION
live.eu Annulled Because of Failure to Comply with “Identicality” Requirement
GHANA
In-House Publication of Trademarks Journal
KOREA
Proposed Amendments to the Trademark Act
NIGERIA
Registrar Retires
SOUTH AFRICA
Gray Goods Importers to Inform Consumers
SHATTERPRUFE Held to Be Suffi ciently Distinctive
SPAIN
New Law Implementing EU Directive 48/04
SYRIA
New Draft IP Law Introduced
UNITED STATES
Supreme Court Ends LES PAUL Guitar Trade Dress Controversy
INTA Bulletin Board
Welcome New Members
The Voice of the International Trademark Association July 15, 2006 Vol. 61, No. 13
2
IN THIS ISSUE
4
11
A delegation of 21 judges and prosecutors from Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Yemen visited INTA’s New York of-fi ce June 20, 2006, to attend a full-day program organized by INTA and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Offi ce. The delegation was briefed on INTA Members’ international anticounter-feiting strategies and the role of the New York City Mayor’s Offi ce of Midtown Enforcement in combating intellectual property theft.
In addition to Association members, speakers included Frederico Gebauer of the Mayor’s Offi ce and representatives of the recording and motion picture industries. Darren E. Pogoda represented the USPTO’s Offi ce of Enforce-ment.
The visit to INTA offi ces was part of a three-week program during which delegates studied IP protection at USPTO headquarters and visited law enforcement agencies, courts
6Ayala Deutsch of NBA Properties discusses anticoun-terfeiting strategies. Ms. Deutsch is Vice Chair of INTA’s Dilution and Well-Known Marks Committee.
“Organic” — Says Who?In Canadian and U.S. trademark law and prac-tice, the word “organic” is considered to be an apt, descriptive term that cannot be exclusively appropriated. When it appears as part of a registered mark, the term must be disclaimed apart from the mark. While from a trademark protection standpoint “or-ganic” may be non-distinctive, the meaning producers intend the term to suggest to con-sumers is another story. There is considerable controversy among competitors over the use of “organic,” particularly as part of marks or on labels or packaging of food and food products. The problem is compounded in a global market where product labeling is regulated under different standards in different countries. This article looks at the rules governing the advertis-ing and labeling of “organic” products in the United States and Canada.
The United States: All Organic Products Are Divided into Three Parts
Since 2002, the “USDA Organic” seal has
been available for use on labels or packaging for eligible food grown in the United States or imported from other countries. The U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture (USDA) accredits agents to
certify that food bearing the seal has been produced and processed in accordance with national standards in the form of regulations promulgated by the USDA under its National Organic Program. The USDA regulations were developed in part based on recommenda-tions of the National Organic Standards Board and public comment.
Generally speaking, there are three categories of food and food products eligible for use of the term “organic” on the principal display panel of the packaging and in advertising:
1. “100 percent organic” and the “USDA Organic” “100 percent organic” and the “USDA Organic” “100 percent organic”seal may be used to label and advertise food and food products that contain only organi-cally produced ingredients (excluding water and salt).
SEE ORGANIC ON PAGE 5
and IP owners around the United States. Among other activities, delegates observed a hearing at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and participat-ed in an alternative dispute resolution exercise.
Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878July 15, 20062
Association NewsAssociation News
INTA’s Trademark Administrators Conference is the premier annual event for non-attorney trademark professionals.
The educational sessions will meet the needs for both novice and experienced trademark professionals and provide comprehensive, practical and timely information on trademark issues critical to your professional success and the organization you represent. Take advantage of this exceptional experience.
At this conference you will:
• Learn how to manage a multinational trademark portfolio
• Experience more hands-on workshops and international speakers, as well as special sessions on professional development.
• Discover the latest in products and services from the leading trademark solution providers
Visit the Education & Training section of www.inta.org to register and for more information.
Trademark Administrators
Conference
September 17 – 20, 2006
Arlington, Virginia, USA
INTA’s Online Country Guides: Streamline Your Search for Practical Trademark InformationLaunched in 2003 on INTA’s website, the online version of Coun-try Guides: Basic Information on Trademark Registration Worldwideis a convenient source of valuable trademark information in 95 countries. Accessible via the Information and Publishing section of INTA’s website, the Guides are a quick and handy resource for Guides are a quick and handy resource for Guidesanswers to common trademark questions from fi ling procedures and use requirements to trademark maintenance and enforcement procedures. As Greg Kaihoi of General Mills Inc. says, “Country Guides are a valuable resource and my most common reason for Guides are a valuable resource and my most common reason for Guidesvisiting the INTA site.”
Mary McGrane, INTA’s Manager of Publications, explains that Association information technology and publishing staff worked hard to create a user-friendly database that allows members to obtain information quickly.
That goal was achieved: Country Guides contains a fully search-able database with several advanced features that simplify the search process. Each jurisdiction’s profi le contains country-specifi c answers to a standard set of basic questions. The profi le database can be used in a number of ways. Users can either view the full profi le of a single jurisdiction’s trademark system or employ more elaborate search options to query specifi c questions within one jurisdiction, one question across all jurisdictions, or multiple ques-tions in up to four jurisdictions simultaneously.
For example, if your client is considering expanding its brands into several new countries, you can use the search feature to retrieve and compare information on fi ling procedures and use requirements in up to four countries at a time—rather than search-ing each country individually. Or, if you want to determine which
of the 95 included countries require use of a mark for renewal purposes, you can obtain that information for all 95 jurisdictions from a single query.
Another time- and cost-saving feature allows users to print cop-ies of jurisdiction profi les. A copyright notice automatically prints on the fi nal page of each search.
In the near future, INTA is planning to add more jurisdictions to the 95 countries the Guides now cover. Principal editor Robert Guides now cover. Principal editor Robert GuidesD. Weston of Phillips & Leigh, London, who for over ten years has been involved with Country Guides in both its print and online Country Guides in both its print and online Country Guidesversions, says, “the ultimate goal is for the Guides to cover all juris-Guides to cover all juris-Guidesdictions with trademark protection.”
The information provided in the Guides is updated annually, Guides is updated annually, Guideswith the assistance of more than 100 INTA members worldwide. The most recent update was completed in November 2005. Ac-cording to Ms. McGrane, INTA is working to add features that would allow for real-time updates of the law or procedure in any particular country. Enhancement of the online Guides is an ongo-ing process, and the Association invites members to comment on the content or capabilities of the site via a suggestions link.
If you found it helpful to research trademark information using any of the three prior print editions of Country Guides, you should Country Guides, you should Country Guidestry using the online model. And if you rely on commercial research services, remember that any employee of an INTA member can access Country Guides for free. It’s a quick and easy way to fi nd answers to common international trademark questions.
By: Kimberly N. Reddick, Bell, Boyd & Lloyd PLLC, Washington, DC
www.inta.org Vol. 61, No. 13 3
On June 7, 2006, a record 220 trademark examining attorneys participated in the fi fth annual INTA–U.S. Patent and Trademark Offi ce Industry Training Seminar. Led by Regular Member Com-mittee moderator and project leader Tiki Dare, Sun Microsystems, presenters discussed how the drive for innovation infl uences mar-keting and trademark strategies in the food and beverage industry. Presenters included the following Regular Member representatives:
Daniel Chung, Cadbury SchweppesJoe Ferretti, PepsiCo./Frito-LayVanessa Garcia-Brito, Mars, IncorporatedRobert Hollweg, Weight Watchers InternationalElizabeth Regan, Marriott International
They addressed challenges encountered in their day-to-day trademark practices, including current health trends, specimen selection and geographic descriptiveness.
Regular Member representatives had the opportunity to highlight the real-world impact of USPTO decisions and to pass on valuable sources of industry information to foster a better understanding of marketplace realities. Examining attorneys were particularly interested in product placement and co-branding efforts, prompting a panel discussion on how corporate licensing guidelines function to “train” consumers to distinguish between various sources of goods and services.
Helping Trademark Examiners Understand the Food and Beverage Industry
At the close of the day-long session, examining attorneys submit-ted suggestions for future topics and industries of interest. Please watch the INTA Bulletin for announcements regarding next year’s INTA Bulletin for announcements regarding next year’s INTA Bulletintopic, and contact Daryl Grecich, INTA Director of Marketing and Communications, to participate.
By: Amanda Conti Duhaime, DaimlerChrysler, Auburn Hills, Michigan, USA
Legal Ethics and Professionalism for Trademark Practitioners E-Learning Program (with CLE)
October 22 – November 4, 2006
This convenient, interactive course is geared specifi cally to trademark lawyers and designed to be relevant to issues such as client confl icts, communications and trademark clearance.
Top reasons to register:
• Get practical tips on dealing with ethics issues arising from searching and clearing trademarks, as well as advocacy and litigation of trademark claims
• Obtain quality ethics education and fulfi ll your ethics CLE requirement at your convenience
• Gain knowledge on your own time schedule from your home or offi ce
Visit the Education & Training section of www.inta.org to register and for more information.
Jon W. Dudas, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO, participated in the seminar.
Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878July 15, 20064
FeaturesFeaturesKnockoff: The Deadly Trade in Counterfeit Goods
Most trademark professionals know that the counterfeiting problem is not limited to knockoff watches: horror stories about fake baby formula and airplane parts abound. In this recent book addressed to the business community in general, author Tim Phillips surveys the wide variety of businesses that have been victims of piracy.
Mr. Phillips is deeply concerned about counterfeiting—and sets out to stir up concern in his readers as well. His book presents the current state of the counterfeit-ing “industry,” with particular attention given to luxury goods, computer software and pharmaceuticals. Mr. Phillips de-scribes the manufacture and distribution of fake products in each of these fi elds and recounts efforts to fi ght the problem, inter-viewing attorneys, law enforcement agents and government offi cials.
Knockoff presents evidence about the Knockoff presents evidence about the Knockoffenormous economic impact of counterfeit-ing, both today and in the long term. According to Mr. Phillips, “almost two-thirds of the [I]nternet is devoted to the knockoff economy.” And in 2004, piracy of Microsoft computer software
was so rampant in Russia that Microsoft received revenue for only 13 percent of “Microsoft” programs sold there. But Mr. Phillips doesn’t just point out the losses to international corporations. He
also explains how software counterfeiting drives prices so low that Russian software companies can’t afford to develop their own technology—technology that in the long run could be exported around the world.
The bleak picture the book paints is of an already overwhelming problem that daily is growing more widespread and complex. Mr. Phillips expresses his frus-tration with counterfeiting by comparing it to “playing ‘whack a mole’—the fairground game where little moles pop their heads up and you frantically and pointlessly hit them with a tiny hammer, until there are so many moles you can’t possibly hit them all.”
While Mr. Phillips conveys the desperate nature of the problem, he stops short of proposing solutions. Instead, the goal of Knockoff is to alert the public to the Knockoff is to alert the public to the Knockoffscope and dangers of the counterfeiting “industry.” For anyone who needs to be convinced that counterfeiting is changing almost every aspect of modern life, Knockoff
should do the trick.
By: James Bush, INTA Bulletin Managing Editor
By Tim Phillips. 2005. pp. 246. Kogan Page Ltd., 120 Pentonville Road, London N1 9JN.
Due to the rapid growth and strengthening of economic and commercial ties between Europe and China, European trademark owners and practitioners need to protect their marks in this important market.
Avoid miscues and learn best practices by spending the day at this fascinating forum.
At the program you will learn:
• The legal and governmental framework for trademarks in China• How to develop a preventive strategy to protect IP in China and abroad• How to deal with counterfeit operations based in China• How to choose and work with local counsel and investigators• How best to protect well-known marks
Gain practical tips and valuable insight from knowledgeable and experienced trademark professionals and network with colleagues from around the world.
Enforcing Trademarks
in China:
What EuropeanProfessionalsShould Know
September 20, 2006
Brussels, Belgium
This program is held in conjunction with:
• INTA’s Board of Directors meeting in Brussels, September 18, 2006• Bi-Annual European Union Relations Program for INTA’s Board of Directors, September 19, 2006• INTA’s new European office’s opening in Brussels
Visit the Education & Training section of www.inta.org to register and for more
information.
www.inta.org Vol. 61, No. 13 5
Organic CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1
2. “Organic” and the “USDA Organic” seal may be used to label “Organic” and the “USDA Organic” seal may be used to label “Organic”and advertise food products that consist of at least 95 percent organically produced ingredients (excluding water and salt) if the remaining 5 percent of ingredients are “nonagricultural substances approved on a national list or non-organically pro-duced agricultural products that are not commercially available in organic form.”
3. “Made with organic ingredients” only may be used (that is, the “Made with organic ingredients” only may be used (that is, the “Made with organic ingredients”“USDA Organic” seal may not be used) to label and adver-tise processed food products that contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients. If a product contains less than 70 percent organic ingredients, the term “organic” may not appear on the front of the package or in advertising, but individual ingredi-ents that are produced organically may be listed as such on the ingredients statement on the side panel of the package. (See http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/FactSheets/LabelingE.html.)
The Courts Interpret and Congress Responds
But what does it mean to be “organically produced,” particu-larly during a manufacturer’s transition period from non-organic production to organic production? What synthetics may be used in processing “organic” foods? How do “non-agricultural substances” become listed on the national list (and therefore available for use in an “organic” food product)? What does it mean for an agricultural product to be not “commercially available in organic form”?
Those issues, among others, have embroiled competitors in the U.S. organic food industry; some of the issues were the subject of a lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court of Maine and appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Harvey v. Veneman, 396 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2005). The federal appellate court reversed in part and granted summary judgment for the plaintiff on two issues: (1) the appropriate standard for “conversion” from non-organic to organic dairy animal production (the court required a full twelve months of 100 percent organic feed prior to sale of products from such animals, whereas the USDA regulations permitted nine months of 80 percent organic feed prior to such sale) and (2) the use of certain synthetic substances in processing food that is labeled “organic” (the court banned any such use, whereas the USDA regulations permitted the use of certain substances). The U.S. Congress promptly responded by restoring the status quo ante in legislation that became effective on November 10, 2005. ante in legislation that became effective on November 10, 2005. anteUndoubtedly there will be more challenges brought under the USDA regulations, as they have a substantial impact on farming and production practices and costs.
Canada’s Voluntary Certifi cation Scheme
In Canada, by contrast, the federal government has yet to intro-duce any specifi c legislation dealing with advertising or labeling relating to “organic” products. In 2003, the Canadian Food In-spection Agency amended its Guide to Food Labelling and Advertis-ing (Guide) (http://www.inspection.gc.ca/) to include guidelines ing (Guide) (http://www.inspection.gc.ca/) to include guidelines ing (Guide)on nutrition labeling and nutrient content claims. The guidelines are voluntary and do not have the force of law; however, they can be used to determine whether a claim that a particular product is
“organic” would be mis-leading or would violate any other federal statutes and/or regulations that deal with food advertis-ing and labeling (i.e., Food and Drugs Act and Regulations, Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act and Regulations).
The Guide incorporates the Standards Council of Canada (SCC) Guide incorporates the Standards Council of Canada (SCC) GuideNational Standard for Organic Agriculture (Standard) and specifi es the minimum criteria that the organic sector believes should be met when food and agricultural products are defi ned as “organic” (http://www.pwgsc.gc.ca/cgsb/pubs/catalogue/catalogue_2006-e.pdf; CAN/CGSB-32.310_99 “Organic Agriculture”). To ensure that the Guide is consistent with national and international de-velopments and incorporates revisions to the Standard, the Guidestates that any reference to the Standard is a reference to the latest version adopted by the SCC.
According to the Standard, a food product may be labeled as “organic” if it consists of 95 percent organic ingredients. If a food product contains a minimum of 70 percent organic ingredients, an “organic” claim may be made provided the percentage of organic ingredients present in the food is made on the principal display panel. When a food product contains less than 70 percent organic ingredients, claims with respect to the organic content of the food may be made within the list of ingredients only.
If an organic food manufacturer wants to ensure that its food product complies with the Standard, it can seek certifi cation from various independent, SCC-accredited certifying bodies that inspect the production unit and products to verify that all stages of production, processing, packaging and distribution meet the Standard’s requirements. A food that has been so certifi ed may be labeled with the certifying body’s trademark.
Quebec: Certifi cation Required
Certifi cation of products described as “organic” is voluntary in all provinces of Canada except Quebec, which requires certifi cation by a certifying body accredited by the Conseil des Appellations Agroalimentaires du Quebec (http://www.caaq.org/).
Read More Than the Fine Print
Today consumers are educated to “read the fi ne print” on product labels. For products labeled “organic” in some way, the fi ne print helps, but defi ning “organic” production and processing practices is still very much a work in progress.
By: Susan J. Keri, Gowling LaFleur Henderson LLP, Toronto; Elisabeth A. Langworthy, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, Washington, DC
Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878July 15, 20066
Law and PracticeLaw and PracticeARGENTINA
Use of Portion of Registered Mark Defeats CancellationOn April 25, 2006, the Federal Court of Appeals in Libbs Farma-ceutica Ltda. v. Roux Ocefa S.A. ruled on claims of undue opposi-tion and cancellation. The court dismissed plaintiff ’s cancellation claim based on defendant’s non-use of the trademark VERAMINA OCEFA. The court held that even if the mark had not been used as registered, use of a distinctive part thereof (VERAMINA) would be considered suffi cient to avoid cancellation.
Libbs Farmaceutica applied to register the trademark VERO-TINA for an antidepressant in Class 5. That application was opposed by Roux Ocefa, which claimed that VEROTINA was confusingly similar to Roux’s marks VERAMINA OCEFA and VERAMINA, both registered for goods in the same class. Libbs brought an action for undue opposition, and further requested cancellation of Roux’s VERAMINA OCEFA registration based on lack of use within the last fi ve years. Libbs argued that the mark had to be used in the form applied for and registered, and that use of VERAMINA alone, instead of VERAMINA OCEFA, could not be considered use suffi cient to avoid cancellation.
The fi rst instance judge dismissed the cancellation claim and deemed Roux’s opposition to be appropriate. Libbs appealed that decision.
The Court of Appeals upheld the fi rst instance decision, fi nd-ing that it had been proved that Roux was using VERAMINA to cover an antibiotic and that OCEFA constituted part of Roux’s trade name. The court further held that the fact that a trademark had kept its distinctive character and had been used in slightly modifi ed form should not prevent protection of the mark. In so holding, the court expressly invoked Section 5.C.2. of the Paris Convention.
The undue opposition claim was resolved in a divided decision that affi rmed the fi rst instance court’s fi nding that VERAMINA OCEFA and VERAMINA were confusingly similar to VERO-TINA.
Contributor: Claudia Serritelli, De las Carreras & Chaloupka, Buenos Ai-res; Verifi er: Laura de Achaval, Ferrer Reyes, Tellechea & Bouché, Buenos Aires
By a vote of two to one, the Court of Appeals upheld the fi rst instance court’s decision. The court considered that it was shown that Anderson’s was a Mexican fi rm doing business in several countries since 1960 under the SEÑOR FROG’S trademark. It was also shown that Anderson’s held several registrations for its trademark in different countries. On the other hand, it was shown that Ricco had registered his trademark earlier than the plaintiff, and that he was using it to sell garden products such as herbicides, insecticides and pesticides. The court concluded that the similarity between the trademarks was evident, but noted that the admis-sion of the nullity action did not directly lead to the recovery of the mark. The court acknowledged that there were similarities between the parties’ marks, but it stressed that the recovery action was conceived to “recover” something that belonged to the claim-ant—not to get back something similar that belonged to a third party. Moreover, the court did not fi nd that Anderson’s trademark SEÑOR FROG’S & Design was well known in Argentina or that there was any reason to grant recovery to the plaintiff.
Contributor: Paola Laurini, Gold-Berkenwald, Buenos Aires; Verifi er: Andrés Moncayo von Hase, Zang, Bergel & Viñes, Buenos Aires
On March 2, 2006, the Federal Court of Appeals upheld the fi rst instance court’s decision in Grupo Anderson’s S.A. de C.V. v. Leon-ardo José Ricco, ordering the nullity of Ricco’s trademark SEÑOR FROG’S & Design and termination of an opposition in connec-tion with Grupo Anderson’s application for SEÑOR FROG’S & Design.
The Mexican fi rm Grupo Anderson’s S.A. de C.V. owns more than 50 restaurants around the world that use the trademark SEÑOR FROG’S & Design. Anderson’s applied to register its trademark for all Class 42 products. Ricco opposed Anderson’s trademark application on the grounds of his registration for SE-ÑOR FROG’S & Design in the same class.
Anderson’s alleged that the defendant copied not only the shape of its trademark, but also the font and the design of the frog. To obtain removal of the opposition, Anderson’s sued Ricco for ter-mination of the opposition and recovery of its trademark, and also requested the nullity of Ricco’s registration.
The fi rst instance court judge admitted the nullity of Mr. Ricco’s trademark but rejected recovery of the SEÑOR FROG’S & Design trademark as requested by Anderson’s.
Both parties appealed that decision, but only the plaintiff con-tinued its appeal. Anderson’s argued that recovery of the trademark should have been permitted, so that Anderson’s could continue to exercise its rights over Mr. Ricco’s registration for SEÑOR FROG’S. Recovery would also give Anderson’s priority over third parties’ use of the SEÑOR FROG’S trademark, which would not be the case if the registration were declared void. By allowing the recovery, the plaintiff would become the owner of the trademark and would continue enjoying all the corresponding rights.
ARGENTINA
Restaurant Mark Owner Cannot Recover Similar Mark Used for Gardening Products
Mark from Ricco’s registrationMark from Anderson’s applicationMark from Anderson’s application
www.inta.org Vol. 61, No. 13 7
On June 16, 2005, in Canadian Medical Association v. Physician’s Choice of Arizona, Inc., the Canadian Trademarks Opposition Board refused an application to register PHYSICIAN’S CHOICE for skincare goods on various grounds, including the fi nding that the use of the word PHYSICIAN’S would mislead the public into believing the medical profession endorsed the goods.
Physician’s Choice of Arizona fi led its application for PHYSI-CIAN’S CHOICE based on use since the mid-1990s in associa-tion with various skincare products. The word PHYSICIAN’S was disclaimed.
The application was opposed by the Canadian Medical Associa-tion (CMA), a national association of medical doctors, which is considered to be a “public authority.” Public authorities are entities such as the Olympic Association and certain charitable organiza-tions. The Canadian Trade-marks Act states that public authori-ties are entitled to protection of their respective marks as “offi cial marks” and that no person may adopt a mark consisting of or resembling an offi cial mark.
Among its grounds for opposition, the CMA contended that PHYSICIAN’S CHOICE resembled its offi cial mark PHYSI-CIAN, and that use of PHYSICIAN’S CHOICE was actually trade name use. Further, the CMA argued that the mark was deceptively misdescriptive of the character of the goods, since the average consumer would assume that a qualifi ed medical doctor had formulated, designed, produced or sold the goods.
In refusing the trademark application, the hearing offi cer held that the mark did resemble the CMA’s offi cial mark and that since PHYSICIAN is synonymous with doctor, it could be inferred that the public would erroneously perceive that the goods were endorsed by the medical community. Further, as PHYSICIAN’S CHOICE appeared on product packaging in small lettering accompanied by the TM symbol and the mailing address of the manufacturer, it was used as a trade name—not as a trademark. As held by the hearing offi cer, mere use of the TM symbol does not automatically transform a trade name into a trademark.
PHYSICIAN’S CHOICE Mark Refused as Deceptively Misdescriptive
GHANA
In-House Publication of Trademarks JournalThe Trademarks Registry in Accra has begun the in-house publica-tion of the Trademarks Journal. The fi rst issue was published on Trademarks Journal. The fi rst issue was published on Trademarks JournalMay 8, 2006. It is expected that in-house publication will substan-tially reduce delays in trademark registration.
Contributor: Chinyere Okorocha, Jackson Etti & Edu, Lagos, Nigeria; Verifi er: Sophia Amissah Laryea, Lexconsult & Company, Accra, Ghana
NIGERIA
Registrar RetiresThe Registrar of Patents and Trade Marks offi cially submitted his retirement notice, effective May 31, 2006, and it was accepted. The retired registrar is expected to continue to attend to some matters until his successor is offi cially named.
Release of the next volume of the Trademarks Journal was Trademarks Journal was Trademarks Journalexpected on May 29, 2006, to coincide with the registrar’s retire-ment. It was not published then but is expected shortly.
Contributor: Uwa Ohiku, Jackson Etti and Edu, Lagos, Nigeria; Verifi er: Sophia Amissah Laryea, Lexconsult & Company, Accra, Ghana
UNITED STATES
Supreme Court Ends LES PAUL Guitar Trade Dress ControversyOn June 5, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Gibson Guitar’s petition for certiorari in the case Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Paul Reed Smith Guitars, LP, 423 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 Smith Guitars, LP, 423 F.3d 539 (6th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 547 Smith GuitarsU.S. ___ (2006). The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari leaves undisturbed the Sixth Circuit’s dismissal of Gibson’s suit, which reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Gibson and entry of injunction against Paul Reed Smith (PRS), as reported in the INTA Bulletin Vol. 61 No. 1, January 1, 2006.
In 2003, Gibson sued PRS, alleging that PRS’s SINGLECUT guitar infringed the two-dimensional shape of Gibson’s registered LES PAUL guitar, which featured a single cutaway at its neck-to-body joint. Gibson also claimed unregistered trademark rights in the overall LES PAUL model confi guration.
Gibson won the fi rst round when the district court specifi cally credited Gibson with trade dress rights in many features of its LES PAUL confi guration, despite evidence submitted by PRS and wit-ness testimony (including that of Gibson’s CEO) that a cutaway design was functional. The court dismissed PRS’s functionality de-fense on summary judgment and issued an injunction against PRS. (That decision was analyzed in Tell Tchaikovsky the News: Trade Dress Rights in Musical Instruments, 94 The Trademark Reporter Dress Rights in Musical Instruments, 94 The Trademark Reporter Dress Rights in Musical Instruments1271 (2004)).
When the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court decision and remanded the case for entry of summary judgment in favor of PRS, it did not address the functionality issue. In a case of fi rst impression, the Sixth Circuit refused to apply the doctrine of initial interest confusion to product shape trademarks. In addition, the court could not fi nd a likelihood of confusion because Gibson had conceded that point-of-sale confusion did not occur between these high-priced guitars.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari has now conclud-ed the appeal process, affi rming the Sixth Circuit’s decision in favor of PRS and effectively ending Gibson’s attempt to assert exclusivity in the overall shape or confi guration of its LES PAUL guitar model.
Contributor: Ilaria Maggioni, R. Kunstadt, P.C., New York, New York; Veri-fi er: Jessica S. Sachs, Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C., Troy, Michigan
Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878July 15, 20068
Law and PracticeLaw and PracticeCOLOMBIA
Colombia to Boost Penalties to IP InfringersOn December 15, 2005, the Colombian Congress approved Bill 890 of 2004, which modifi es Article 306 of the Colombian Criminal Code. The changes increase the prison term for IP infringement from a two- to four-year term to a four- to eight-year term. The modifi cations also change the monetary fi nes from 20 to 2,000 times the monthly minimum wage to 26.66 to 1,500 times the monthly minimum wage. The monthly minimum wage in Colombia is equivalent to USD 170.
Plant breeders will now be included in the IP rights protection law. The article will be titled “Usurpation of Industrial Property and Plant Breeder’s Rights,” which should help resolve several years of uncertainty about penalties for infringement of plant breeders’ rights.
This initiative should be signed into law by recently re-elected President Álvaro Uribe Vélez, who is one of the promoters of these modifi cations to the Colombian criminal system.
Contributor: Felipe Rubio, Humberto Rubio & Co. Lawyers, Bogotá; Verifi er: Luz Helena Vil-lamil Jiménez, Villamil IP Legal Services, Bogotá
On May 29, 2006, pursuant to a complaint fi led by Microsoft B.V., the ADR Center for .eu Do-main Names annulled a decision of the European Registry of Internet Domain Names (EURid) to id) to idgrant the domain name live.eu. During the sun-rise period, registrant Multan B.V. fi led to register that domain name based on a Benelux trademark registration for LI&VE (Case No. 00 265).
The ADR Center’s decision analyzes Micro-soft’s arguments concerning (1) the alleged fi ling of the domain name application for live.eu in bad faith and for speculative reasons during the sun-rise period and (2) an incorrect interpretation of Article 11 of EC Regulation 874/2004, which sets forth the requirements for converting trademarks composed of special characters (such as “&”) into domain names for purposes of establishing whether the trademark is identical to the domain name and thus can be a basis for an application to register the domain name during the sunrise period.
The ADR Center held that the issue of whether the domain name application was fi led in bad faith and for speculative reasons was not a valid reason to revoke the domain name, because those issues were not for the validation agent to assess during the sunrise period.
On the other hand, the ADR Center ruled that the validation agent did have the duty to check whether the domain name applied for was identi-cal to the trademark, and that the comparison criteria have to be the same in the trademark and in the domain name area. The Center concluded that LI&VE and LIVE were not identical either from a conceptual point of view or from a visual and aural standpoint. Consequently, the Cen-ter annulled EURid’ s decision on the grounds id’ s decision on the grounds id’that alternative forms of the domain name that were identical to the trademark already existed and were available to the applicant. The Center cited the following examples: li-ve.eu; liandve.eu; lienve.eu; liundve.eu; lietve.eu; and lieve.eu.
In short, the Center has adopted a strict inter-pretation of the concept of “identicality.”
ADR Center for .eu Domain Name decisions are available online at www.adreu.eurid.eu/adr/decisions/index.php
Contributor: Laura Alonso Domingo, Elzaburu, Madrid, Spain; Verifi er: Pedro Merino Baylos, Grau, Baylos & Angulo, Madrid, Spain
EUROPEAN UNION
live.eu Annulled Because of Failure to Comply with “Identicality” Requirement
SOUTH AFRICA
SHATTERPRUFE Held to Be Sufficiently DistinctiveThe High Court of South Africa recently considered the distinctiveness of the trademark SHATTERPRUFE, registered in Class 12 for “safety glass and windows included in the class; motorcar windscreens; the aforegoing made from glass; articles of safety glass included in this class.” Commercial AutoGlass (Pty) Ltd v. Baker Street Trust and Others; In re Jennings NO and others v. Commercial Auto Glass (Pty) Ltd [2006] 2 All SA 260 (T), published on May 2, 2006.
The trademark owner and its predecessors-in-title had used SHATTERPRUFE as a trademark for laminated safety glass since 1929 and had fi led evidence of acquired distinctiveness through use when application was fi rst made to register the mark in 1942.
The Court confi rmed the distinctive nature of the mark, which it said lay in the spelling of the word. Specifi cally, the Court found originality in the element PRUFE, “which is striking and contributes to its distinctive character.”
However, the Court ruled that use of the word “shatterproof” in its descriptive sense would not infringe the mark SHATTERPRUFE. Use would be descriptive if the word “shatterproof” was not emphasized so that it could be perceived to be a trademark and was used merely to describe products.
The Court gave examples of use in written form. The word SHATTERPROOF placed on its own on laminated glass would be more than a mere description of the product and would amount to infringement of SHATTERPRUFE, whereas the phrase “This glass is shatterproof” without any emphasis of the word “shatterproof” would be in order. Each case would have to be judged on its own merits. The Court observed that the likelihood of deception would be less substantial when the word appeared in the written form, while oral publication of the descriptive word in an audio advertisement could cause confusion, as the listener would not be able to distinguish between the trademark SHATTERPRUFE and the descriptive word “shatterproof”.
Contributor: Ilse du Plessis, Jan S. de Villiers IP, Stellenbosch; Verifi er: André Myburgh, Fairbridges, Cape Town
www.inta.org Vol. 61, No. 13 9
KOREA
Proposed Amendments to the Trademark ActAmendments to the Trademark Act (TMA) were recently announced in Korea. The main goal of the amendments, which are to become effective in July 2007, is to improve protection for legitimate trademark owners.
Imitation Marks
The amendments propose lowering the standard of fame required to bar registration of an imitation mark. Under current TMA Article 7.1.12, the fi rst-to-fi le principle allows the registration of a mark that imitates another’s trademark if the original mark is not well known inside or outside of Korea:
Trademarks which are identical or similar to a trademark easily recognized in Korea or outside of Korea as a source identifi er of an-other party, and which are used to obtain unjust profi ts or to infl ict harm on the other party, shall not be registered [emphasis added].
However, the standard for well-known status is extremely high. Thus, in most cases the current TMA provision has not been an effective barrier against registration of imitation marks. The amendments propose solving that problem by deleting the word “easily” from Article 7.1.12.
Further, under the current TMA, a registered imitation mark can be cited to block the legitimate prior user’s use of the same mark in Korea. Under the proposed amendments, however, even if an imitation mark has been registered, the prior user can continue to use its mark provided that the mark is recognized as the user’s source identifi er by Korean consumers through prior use in Korea.
Recognition of Nontraditional Marks
In view of current technical and industrial developments, the Korean In-tellectual Property Offi ce has decided to expand the types of trademarks that may be registered. Thus, the proposed amendments provide for the protection of nontraditional marks such as motion marks, hologram marks and color marks.
Opposition Period Lengthened to Two Months
In order to provide trademark owners with more time and notice to pur-sue an opposition against a published confl icting mark, the amendments lengthen the current opposition period of 30 days from the publication date to two months from the publication date.
Contributor: Jay J. Kim, Kim & Chang, Seoul; Verifi er: Joonghyo Kim, Choice Kim Intellectual Property Law, Seoul
SOUTH AFRICA
Gray Goods Importers to Inform ConsumersOn April 26, 2006, the South African Minister of Trade and Industry published in the Government Gazette a Government Gazette a Government Gazettepreliminary Notice that prohibits and declares unlawful “unfair business practice.” The Notice was published after the Minister’s consideration of a Consumer Affairs Com-mittee report. In the Notice, “unfair business practice” is defi ned to be:
1.1 the business practice whereby unauthorized branded products are advertised, promoted and/or offered for sale to end users and where end users have not been alerted by the seller that it:
(a) is not authorized by the manufacturer as an au-thorized distributor of the branded product, and
(b) that the authorized South African distributor is under no obligation to honour the manufacturer’s warranties/guarantees and/or after-sales support.
Unauthorized branded product means a branded import without the express authorization of the manufacturer and/or owner of the brand name or trade mark or of his formally appointed South Afri-can distributor; and includes any tangible object or product promoted or offered in the ordinary course of business for sale or supply to end user.
1.2 the business practice whereby the sellers of un-authorized branded products do not include, in all forms of advertising or promotion, including in-store promotions, websites and brochures, when every such product is advertised or promoted, the following wording in conspicuous size, without change: “The authorized South African distributor of this product is under no obligation to honour the manufacturer’s guarantee/warrantees or to provide after-sales service.”
On the recommendation of the Consumer Affairs Committee, the Minister may in a particular case grant an exemption from a condition or requirement contem-plated in the Notice. The application for exemption must be directed to the Chief Director of the Consumer Affairs Committee.
Interested parties were given 30 days from the publica-tion of the preliminary Notice to comment. The Minister is still to publish the Final Notice, which will come into operation from date of publication.
Source: Notice 586, South African Government Gazette of June 15, 2006; Contributor: Velile Memela, Spoor & Fisher, Centu-rion, South Africa
Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878July 15, 200610
Law and PracticeLaw and PracticeSPAIN
New Law Implementing EU Directive 48/04Spanish Law No. 19/2006, of June 5, 2006, enhances the means of enforcing intellectual and industrial property rights and lays down rules of procedure to facilitate the application of various Commu-nity regulations.
The purpose of the law, which was published June 6, is to implement the provisions of Directive 2004/48/EC concerning intellectual property rights.
Amendments have been made to the Law on Civil Procedure, Law No. 1/2000. Amendments have been made also to specifi c legislation, namely, the consolidated version of the Intellectual Property Act approved by Royal Legislative Decree No. 1/1996; the Patent Act, Law No. 11/1986; the Trademark Act, Law No. 17/2001; and the Industrial Design Protection Act, Law No. 20/2003.
In the Law on Civil Procedure, the right to information is regulated by new preliminary procedures, and new measures for protecting evidence have been established.
The main change to the specifi c legislation is the amendment of the provisions dealing with damages, which have been brought in line with the Directive and thus have two standards for calculat-ing damages. In addition, damages will expressly include the right holder’s expenditures on investigations to obtain evidence of infringement.
The new wording of the articles dealing with damages is some-what unclear as compared with the previous wording. On the one hand, a defi nition of “moral prejudice” has been included to coex-ist with the notion of “damage to prestige of IP rights” introduced by the Trademark Act of 2001. Damage to an IP right’s prestige was formerly assessed in addition to purely economic losses, whereas under the current wording taken from the Directive, mor-al prejudice would seem to be in addition to economic loss onlywhere the fi rst standard for calculating damages (negative econom-ic consequences suffered by the injured party) is employed, but not where the second standard (the amount of royalties or license fees) is used. This will be something for the courts to elucidate, because if this strict interpretation is followed, the revision would be a step backwards compared to the system previously in force.
Another amendment common to the various laws is intended to broaden the range of actions designed to prevent new infringe-ments, in particular, destruction and seizure of the means and instruments used to commit infringement.
Lastly, the time period for fi ling the main complaint after a preliminary request for interim measures has been made has been shortened from two months to 20 working days after the prelimi-nary request.
Contributor: Ignacio D. Rivera, Elzaburu, Madrid; Verifi er: Fabrizio Mi-azetto, Bardehle Pagenberg Dost Altenburg Geissler, Alicante
SYRIA
New Draft IP Law IntroducedA new proposed law for distinctive marks, geographical indications and industrial designs and models was approved by the Syrian Council of Ministers on June 6, 2006.
According to the Syrian Arab News Agency, the draft law will replace the current Legislative Decree No. 47 of 1946 on Trade-marks, Patents and Industrial Designs and Models.
“The draft law, which is in line with the international trea-ties and agreements in the fi eld of intellectual property, aims at keeping pace with the recent economic developments in Syria,” Secretary of the Council of Ministers Maher Mojtahed told the newspaper Al-Baath.
The draft law includes provisions related to the fi ling of applica-tions in different classes of goods or services, publication, opposi-tions and appeals. For example, international applications fi led under the Madrid Agreement and Protocol that designate Syria will be treated as national applications and will be subject to the same examination and opposition procedures.
Famous marks that are well known in Syria and abroad are recognized in the draft law, and courts will ensure their protection even if such marks are not registered in Syria.
To achieve better enforcement of IP rights, stringent border measures were introduced. The measures entitle rights holders to request the customs authorities to monitor imports for suspected infringement. Customs will have the authority to inspect contain-ers, seize suspected goods and give the concerned parties ten days to initiate proceedings.
A special chamber will be set up at the Court of First Instance to examine cases related to IP infringements.
It is worth noting that the draft law includes for the fi rst time a chapter that regulates the status of IP agents in Syria.
The draft law either will be passed by a legislative decree by President Bashar Al-Assad or will be referred to the Parliament to be endorsed.
In connection with the draft law, the Syrian Ministry of Econo-my and Trade issued a new scale of offi cial fees for the registration and maintenance of trademarks and industrial designs. The newly modifi ed charges will be applied once the draft law is enacted.
Contributor: Hala Shamlawi, Abu-Ghazaleh Intellectual Property, Amman, Jordan; Verifi er: Mohammad A. Azmeh, Abu-Ghazaleh Intellectual Prop-erty, Damascus, Syria
www.inta.org Vol. 61, No. 13 11
INTA Bulletin BoardThe Mexican fi rms Hill–De La Sierra & Prado and Calderon & de la Sierra have merged and will operate as Calderon & de la Sierra. Jose De La Sierra Jr., a founder of Hill-De La Sierra & Prado, has retired but will be of counsel to the new fi rm.
The “INTA Bulletin Board” announces job changes or other signifi cant career news about individuals who belong to INTA organizations. To submit an item for consideration, send a brief message to [email protected].
Welcome New MembersAccenture, Chicago, IL, USA; Advokaturburo Beutler Kunzi Stutz, Berne, Switzerland; Al Shaali and Co., Dubai, UAE; Al-lied Telesis, Inc., Bothell, WA USA; Alprin Law Offi ces, Bothell, WA USA; Alprin Law Offi ces, Bothell, WA USA; Wash-ington, DC USA; Ambrosius International Patent,ington, DC USA; Ambrosius International Patent,ington, DC USA; Jakarta, Indonesia; APV Limited, Crawley, UK; Aramarks IP, Doha, Qatar; ASCIO Technologies Inc, Copenhagen, Denmark; Ayala & Lopez Abogados, Caracas, Venezuela; Beam Global Spirits & Wine, Inc., Deerfi eld, IL USA; Billabong International Deerfi eld, IL USA; Billabong International Deerfi eld, IL USA;Limited, Queensland, Australia; Bonelli Erede Pappalardo, Queensland, Australia; Bonelli Erede Pappalardo, Queensland, Australia;Milan, Italy; Bulova Corporation, Milan, Italy; Bulova Corporation, Milan, Italy; Woodside, NY, USA; Burch, Woodside, NY, USA; Burch, Woodside, NY, USA;Porter & Johnson, PLLC, Memphis, TN USA; Cameron & Memphis, TN USA; Cameron & Memphis, TN USA;Hornbostel LLP, Washington, DC USA; Cardoza IP, Singapore; Coastal Trademark Services, Vancouver, Canada; Coching-yan & Peralta Law Offi ces, Makati, Philippines; Com Laude, Makati, Philippines; Com Laude, Makati, Philippines;London, UK; Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP, Los Angeles, CA USA; Daimler Chrysler UK Limited, CA USA; Daimler Chrysler UK Limited, CA USA; Buckinghamshire, UK; Davis Munck Butrus, P.C., Dallas, TX, USA; Despacho Gonzalez-Bueno, S.L., Madrid, Spain; DIS Patent Marka Tescil ve Danismanlik LTD. STI., Istanbul, Turkey; DNC Law Firm, Jakarta, Indonesia; Donald E. Martin, P.C., Falls Church, VA, USA; Dunkin Brands, Inc., Canton, MA USA; Escada AG, Aschheim, Germany; Esguerra & Blanco Law Offi ces, Makati City, Philippines; Ferrer Weber IP Services LLC, City, Philippines; Ferrer Weber IP Services LLC, City, Philippines; Bridgewater, NJ USA; Filemot Technology Law LTD, NJ USA; Filemot Technology Law LTD, NJ USA; London, UK; Fortune Consulting, Etobicoke, Canada; Foucaud, Tchekhoff, Pochet & Associes, Paris, France; France Telecom, Paris, France; Fro-mageries Bel, Paris, France; Georgia-Pacifi c France, Paris, France; Georgia-Pacifi c France, Paris, France; Courbev-oie, France; Global Intellectual Property Strategy Center, P.C., oie, France; Global Intellectual Property Strategy Center, P.C., oie, France;Washington, DC, USA; Guzman, Diaz-Wiechers & De La Bar-ra, Santiago, Chile; Hahn & Moodley LLP, Los Altos, CA, USA; Haldanes, Hong Kong, SAR; Hallmark Canada, North York, Canada; Hanni Rosenzweig & Co., Tel Aviv, Israel; Hynes Lawyers, Queensland, Australia; Industria De Diseno Textil, S.A. (Inditex, S. A.), Arteixo, Spain; Intellectual Property Arteixo, Spain; Intellectual Property Arteixo, Spain;Law Firm, Simi Valley, CA, USA; Invicta Law Group, PLLC, Simi Valley, CA, USA; Invicta Law Group, PLLC, Simi Valley, CA, USA;Seattle, WA, USA; Jill Sexsmith, Barrister & Solicitor Patent & Trademark Agent, Toronto, Canada; Joel Wiener, Toronto, Canada; Joel Wiener, Toronto, Canada; Martins-ville, NJ USA; Jun He Law Offi ces, Beijing, China, People’s Republic; Kasan IP & Law Firm, Seoul, South Korea; Kobayashi Seoul, South Korea; Kobayashi Seoul, South Korea;& Todo, Tokyo, Japan; Krieg DeVault LLP, Tokyo, Japan; Krieg DeVault LLP, Tokyo, Japan; Indianapolis, IN USA; Kroher Strobel, Munich, Germany; Kyocera Wireless Corp., San Diego, CA USA; Lacoste, Paris, France; Law Offi ces of Thomas J. Treutler, A Professional Corporation, Santa Ana, CA, USA; Lexx & Sophy, Lagos, Nigeria; Liacouras & Smith LLP, Philadelphia, PA USA; Lord, Bissell & Brooke LLP, Atlanta, GA, USA; Lottenberg Advogados Associados, Sao Paulo, Brazil; Lung Tin International Intellectual Property Paulo, Brazil; Lung Tin International Intellectual Property Paulo, Brazil;Agent Ltd., Beijing, China, People’s Republic; Maidenform, Inc., Bayonne, NJ, USA; Markolog HB, Stockholm, Sweden; Mars, Incorporated, McLean, VA USA; McDermott Will & Emery, Irvine, CA, USA; McLennan Ross LLP, Irvine, CA, USA; McLennan Ross LLP, Irvine, CA, USA; Edmonton, Canada; Merk-Echt BV, Breda, Netherlands; Miglani Mahesh Kumar, New Delhi, India; MIPS Technologies, Inc., New Delhi, India; MIPS Technologies, Inc., New Delhi, India; Mountain View, CA USA; Morningside Translations, New York, NY, USA; Mu-noz Abogados. Iuris Mark Venezuela, Caracas, Venezuela; Nike Bauer Hockey Inc., St-Jerome, Canada; NTs-F Sarl, St-Jerome, Canada; NTs-F Sarl, St-Jerome, Canada; Crans, Switzerland; O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Switzerland; O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Switzerland; Newport Beach, CA,
July Roundtables
Topic:
Fair or Foul: Navigating the Waters of Fair Use
July 10 – 24, 2006 Various U.S. cities
Held in multiple U.S. cities, these roundtables are designed to fit into your busy schedule.
Visit the Education & Training section of www.inta.org to register and
for more information
UNITED STATES
USA; Origin Patent & Law Firm, Seoul, South Korea; Packard and Seoul, South Korea; Packard and Seoul, South Korea;Dierking, LLC, Boulder, CO, USA; Patent and Law Firm “YUS”, Moscow, Russia; Paul Smith Intellectual Property Law, Vancouver, Canada; Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer, Herzelia, Israel; PSCU Patent & Trademark Law Offi ce, Beijing, China, People’s Republic; Puma North America, Inc., Westford, MA, USA; Realpower Intellectual Westford, MA, USA; Realpower Intellectual Westford, MA, USA;Property Agency Limited, Beijing, China, People’s Republic; Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA, USA; Scott Paper Limited, Missis-sauga, Canada; SCP Global Africa IP, Douala, Cameroon; Scripps Douala, Cameroon; Scripps Douala, Cameroon;Networks, Inc., New York, NY, USA; SD PETOSEVIC, New York, NY, USA; SD PETOSEVIC, New York, NY, USA; Tirana, Albania; SD PETOSEVIC, Sofi a, Bulgaria; SD PETOSEVIC, Sko-pje, Macedonia; SD PETOSEVIC, Ljubljana, Slovenia; Selena Altro Paperman, Westmount, Canada; Seton & Associates, PLC, Westmount, Canada; Seton & Associates, PLC, Westmount, Canada; Beverly Hills, CA USA; Shanghai Jinghu Trademark Service, Shanghai, China, People’s Republic; Shanghai Zhi Ming Trademark Agency China, People’s Republic; Shanghai Zhi Ming Trademark Agency China, People’s Republic;Co. Ltd., Shanghai, China, People’s Republic; Shaub & Williams, Los Angeles, CA, USA
International Trademark Association655 Third Avenue, 10th FloorNew York, NY 10017 USA+1-212-768-9887 • f: +1-212-768-7796www.inta.org • [email protected]
August 3, 2006Roundtable: Litigation Procedures for Trademark AttorneysMontevideo, Uruguay
September 17 – 20, 2006Trademark Administrators ConferenceArlington, Virginia, USA
September 20, 2006Enforcing Trademarks in China: What European Professionals Should KnowBrussels, Belgium
October 2 – 28, 2006E-Learning: Trademark Basics (with CLE) and Madrid Protocol Basics (with CLE)Anywhere via the internet
October 9 – 28, 2006E-Learning: TTAB Basics (with CLE)Anywhere via the internet
October 22 – November 4, 2006E-Learning: Legal Ethics and Professionalism for Trademark Practitioners (with CLE)Anywhere via the internet
November 8 – 11, 2006Leadership MeetingPhoenix, Arizona, USA
INTA BULLETIN COMMITTEETo contact a member of the INTA Bulletin Committee, send an email to the managing editor at [email protected].
![Packaging Your AIESEC Experience by Cadbury Schweppes [Reparado]](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/555cb3dfd8b42ab2358b55fa/packaging-your-aiesec-experience-by-cadbury-schweppes-reparado.jpg)
