the Paris Convention. Every member of the Madrid Union is a member of its Assembly. Among the most important tasks of the Assembly are the adoption of the program and budget of the Union and the adoption and modification of the implementing regulations, including the fixing of fees connected with the use of the Madrid system.
the Paris Convention. The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property in its Article 17 grants state parties the possibility to propose amendments to a number of or- ganizational provisions. Article 18 of the same Convention constitutes the legal basis for revision conferences to be held successively in one of the countries of the Union. Such revisions concern, inter alia, the substantive provisions of the Paris Convention. Each revision has the stated purpose of introducing amend- ments “designed to improve the system of the Union” (Article 18.1). Accordingly, the Paris Convention has been revised at a series of conferences between its entry into force in 1883 and the latest revision in 1967.161
the Paris Convention. The Madrid System is a centrally administered system (by the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO) for obtaining a bundle of trademark registrations in separate jurisdictions, creating in effect a basis for an "international registration" of marks. This guide is intended to highlight the resources and important issues encountered in using the Madrid System for the international registration of marks. The Madrid Agreement The Agreement was established in 1891 for the purpose of providing a mechanism that would allow for a single and inexpensive international trademark registration and to eliminate the need for filing, prosecuting or maintaining separate registrations in multiple countries. Registration of a mark under the Agreement provides for the legal equivalent of registration in member countries designated by the mark owner. If the trademark office of the designated country does not communicate a refusal of registration to WIPO within 12 months (extended to 18 months under the Protocol) the mark will have the same protection as registered national marks in that country. The Agreement also provides for a simplified renewal system since registration to renew and chances to the original registration affecting all the countries included in the registration can be made through a single filing with WIPO. Despite the advantages of registration through the Agreement the U.S. and several other major countries (e.g. Australia, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Netherlands, Republic of Korea, Sweden, the United Kingdom (click here for a list of members to the Agreement and the Protocol) never joined the Agreement because of perceived defects in its structure. These perceived defects included issues such as the requirement for registration in the home country before protection of the mark could be awarded, unlimited risk of “central attack” to the mark, a short examination period, fees that are lower that the corresponding fees in the home country’s trademark offices, and limitations on assignability. The Madrid Protocol The Protocol was adopted in 1989 to correct the perceived deficiencies in the Agreement. However, the Protocol maintains the initial intention of the Agreement, to create a system of simple and inexpensive international trademark registration. Therefore, while only 57 countries are presently part of the agreement, a total of 74 countries including the U.S. are party to either both the Agreemen...
the Paris Convention. The basic principle of protection against unfair competition is set out in Article 10bis of the Paris Convention, which is both gen- erally incorporated in TRIPS at Article 2 (see Chapter 3), and specifically incorpo- rated as a foundation for protection of geographical indications at Article 22.2(b). Article 10bis of the Paris Convention states: “Unfair Competition
(1) The countries of the Union are bound to assure to nationals of such countries effective protection against unfair competition.
(2) Any act of competition contrary to honest practices in industrial or commer- cial matters constitutes an act of unfair competition.
(3) The following in particular shall be prohibited:
1. all acts of such a nature as to create confusion by any means whatever with the establishment, the goods, or the industrial or commercial activities, of a competitor;
2. false allegations in the course of trade of such a nature as to discredit the estab- lishment, the goods, or the industrial or commercial activities, of a competitor;
3. indications or allegations the use of which in the course of trade is liable to mislead the public as to the nature, the manufacturing process, the characteristics, the suitability for their purpose, or the quantity, of the goods.” In addition, the Paris Convention, at Article 10(1), includes provision (cross- referenced to Article 9), obligating state parties to provide for the seizure of im- ports “in cases of direct or indirect use of a false indication of the source of the good or the identity of the producer, manufacturer, or merchant”. Article 10(2) provides that a right to prevent such imports should be accorded to “Any producer, manufacturer, or merchant, whether a natural person or a legal entity, engaged in the production or manufacture of or trade in such goods and established either in the locality falsely indicated as the source, or in the region where such locality is situated, or in the country falsely indicated, or in the country where the false indication of source is used”.
the Paris Convention. At present, the practice of the International Bureau is to check that the first filing from which priority is claimed was effected in or for a State party to the Paris Convention. At its thirty-first session (September 1999), the Assembly of the Madrid Union approved a change in practice according to which the International Bureau will record in the International Register a priority claim not only where the earlier filing was effected in a country party to the Paris Convention but also where it was effected in a Member of the WTO not party to the Paris Convention. This change in practice will be implemented with effect from January 1, 2000.
the Paris Convention. After nine years of preparation The Paris Convention for the protection of Industrial Property came into force in 1884. Since then it has been a subject for numerous revisions, the last one in Stockholm in 1967. The contracting states create a Union. The topics treated in the articles of the PC are of four different kinds; the establishment of an administrative framework for the maintenance of the convention, the regulative rights and duties of the member states, provisions guaranteeing the principle of national treatment and substantive mandatory rules of law on various topics of intellectual property creating rights and duties for private parties.147 Compulsory licensing of patents is regarded in two different ways. First it is a remedy against abuses of the exclusiveness of the patent right which the 144 The Paris Convention for the protection of Industrial Property as revised in Stockholm in 1967. The convention in whole can be found at xxxx://xxx.xxxx.xxx/clea/docs/en/wo/wo020en.htm (last visited 2004-06-30). 145 The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights including Trade in Counterfeit Goods. The TRIPS agreement is Annex 1c to the GATT agreement currently administrated by the WTO. The complete TRIPS agreement can be found at xxxx://xxx.xxx.xxx/english/docs_e/legal_e/27- trips_01_e.htm (last visited 2004-06-30). 146 Proposal for a Council Regulation on the Community Patent, Brussels, 1.8.2000, COM (2000) 412 final, 2000/0177 (CNS). 147 Bodenhausen; Guide to the application of the Paris convention for the protection of industrial property. As revised in Stockholm in 1967., Geneva, 1968, pp 9-16. member states may apply at their own choice148. Second it is the sanction which must proceed forfeiture of a patent for a breach against a national obligation to exploit it149. The former is a legislative right of a member state and the second is a mandatory rule stipulated in the interest of the patentee. Sweden150 is a member of the Paris Union and so are the rest of the members of the European Union and the United States of America151.
