BulletinThe Voice of the International Trademark Association February 1, 2010 Vol. 65 No. 3

IN ThIs Issue AssociAtion news

INTA and ARIPO Strengthen Ties

INTA Bulletin Board

Volunteer spotlightDavid E. ClarkeBrett Tolpin

FeAturesCriminal Prosecution for Counterfeiting in Latin America

What U.S. Litigants Should Consider When Selecting a Survey Method

LAw & PrActiceBrazIlLocal Company Has Prior Right to LG Mark for Computers

ChINaSAIC Issues Plans Regarding Trademark Examination

eurOPeaN uNIONECJ Advocate General: Google’s AdWords Do Not Constitute Trademark Infringement

CFI Upholds CANNABIS as Descriptive in Classes 32 and 33

FraNCeRound Three in French Battle of LVMH and eBay

INDIaStep Taken Toward Accession to the Madrid Protocol

MalaYsIaNo Further Appeal in McCURRY Restaurant Dispute

sWITzerlaNDGeographical Trademarks in Peril? Swiss Supreme Court Takes a Strict Approach

sYrIaOfficial Fees for Trademark and Design Publication Increased

TaIWaNCommon Squirrel Device Deemed to Lack Distinctiveness

TuNIsIaTrademark Registration and Renewal Procedures Facilitated

uDrPLeaner and Greener: ICANN Announces (Almost) Paperless UDRP Procedures

INTa and arIPO strengthen TiesIn a ceremony in Gabarone, Botswana, dur-ing the November 20, 2009, meeting of the Council of Ministers of the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO), 2009 INTA President Richard Heath (Unilever PLC-UK) and ARIPO Director General Gift Sibanda signed a coop-eration agreement for-malizing the more than decade-old relationship between the two organi-zations. The agreement promotes joint action to raise the awareness of ARIPO member states to the importance of implementing the Banjul Protocol that under-lies the regional trademark system—a priority for INTA based on a 2000 Board resolution. So far, Botswana is the only ARIPO member state to have implemented the Banjul Protocol.

The cooperation agreement also calls for INTA and ARIPO to join forces in provid-ing training and educational opportunities for trademark practitioners in Africa through e-learning, seminars, roundtables and publi-cations. INTA will strive to assist ARIPO in

providing information on the latest initiatives in trademark law and practice. The organiza-

tions will develop plans of action to advance ac-tivities covered under the agreement, which may be renewed every two years.

The week also included a meeting of ARIPO’s Administrative Council during which Caroline Van Dijk (Lysaght & Co.—UK), who chaired the 2008–2009 OAPI/ARIPO Subcommittee of INTA’s Trademark Office Practices Committee, pre-sented on the culmination

of two year’s work with ARIPO and its Reg-istrars in devising a questionnaire and collect-ing data on trademark laws and practices of the ARIPO member states. The project is an effort to promote harmonization of trademark law and practice and to remove obstacles to trade. This important work was made possible by the efforts of several members of the Trademark Office Practices Committee, notably Melanie Martin-Jones (Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur LLP—USA) and Brenda Wood Kahari (B.W. Kahari—Zimbabwe).

2009 INTA President Richard Heath (left, Unilever PLC-UK) and ARIPO Director General Gift Sibanda

DID YOu reNeW YOur INTa MeMBershIP? reNeWeD INTa MeMBers saVe us $500 + ON aNNual MeeTINg regIsTraTION!

This incredible savings is the difference between the member and non-member registration rate.

are YOu a CurreNT INTa MeMBer?Renew your INTA membership today to continue receiving member benefits such as a discounted Annual Meeting registration rate.

Visit www.inta.org/apps/renewal2 to renew today!

Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878February 1, 20102

INTA BulleTIN COMMITTeeTo contact a member of the INTA Bulletin Committee, send an email to the managing editor at bulletin@inta.org.

ChairJanice Housey, Latimer, Mayberry & Matthews

Vice ChairWalter Palmer, Pinheiro Palmer Advogados

association NewsMarie Lussier, Chitiz Pathak LLPKen Taylor, Marksmen

FeaturesValerie Brennan, Hogan & Hartson LLPAlexander Klett, Reed Smith LLP

law & Practice: africa, Central asia, eastern europe & Middle eastCharles Sha’ban, Abu-Ghazaleh Intellectual Property

law & Practice: asia–PacificBarbara Sullivan, Henry Hughes Patent & Trademark

Attorneys

law & Practice: europeWiebke Baars, Taylor WessingChristoph Gasser, Staiger, Schwald & Partner Ltd.

law & Practice: latin america & CaribbeanJohn Murphy, Arochi, Marroquin & Lindner S.C.

law & Practice: united states & CanadaTimothy Lockhart, Willcox & Savage PC

INTA BulleTIN sTaFFexecutive Director Alan C. Drewsen

Director, Publishing Randi Mustello

Managing editor, INTA BulletinJames F. Bush

associate editor, INTA BulletinJoel L. Bromberg

Designer Jesse Riggle

OFFICers & COuNselPresidentHeather Steinmeyer, WellPoint, Inc.

President electGerhard Bauer, Daimler AG

Vice PresidentGregg Marrazzo, Kimberly-Clark Corporation

Vice PresidentToe Su Aung, BATMark Ltd.

TreasurerBret Parker, Pfizer Inc.

secretaryMei-lan Stark, Fox Entertainment Group

CounselDale Cendali, Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of items in this newsletter, readers are urged to check independently on matters of specific interest. The INTA Bulletin relies on members of the INTA Bulletin Committee and INTA staff for content but also accepts submissions from others. The INTA Bulletin Editorial Board reserves the right to make, in its sole discretion, editorial changes to any item offered to it for publication.

For permission to reproduce INTA Bulletin articles, send a brief message with the article’s name, volume and issue number, proposed use and estimated number of copies or viewers to bulletin@inta.org.

INTA Bulletin sponsorships in no way connote INTA’s endorsement of the products, services or messages depicted therein.

© 2010 International Trademark Association

INTa Bulletin Board

On the Move

Brooks Kushman law firm in Southfield, Michigan, USA, has hired Leon E. Redman as a senior attorney and Emily S. Adelman as an associate attorney. Mr. Redman most recently served as IP counsel for Masco Corp. of Taylor, Michigan, USA. Ms. Adelman was with Cook Alex Ltd. of Chicago.

C & L Attorneys, SC. (Mexico) has moved their offices. Their new con-tact information is: Av. Insurgentes Sur 1722 Suite 203, Col. Florida, C.P. 01030, Mexico, D.F., Mexico. Tel. +(52) (55) 5659 4020 / 5659 5078 / 5554 1054. Fax. (please dial ext. 22).

Welcome New Members

Acto Mark International Intellectual Property, Dubai, UAE; Adams and Reese LLP, New Orleans, LA, USA; Agency Terramark-ip, Miami, FL, USA & Tegucigalpa MDC, Honduras; Alimoglu Oruc, Istanbul, Turkey; Barlow, Jo-sephs & Holmes, Ltd., Providence, RI, USA; Bowditch & Dewey LLP, Worces-ter, MA, USA; Bryan Cave LLP, Hamburg, Germany; Clarke Willmott LLP, Southampton, UK; Decker, Jones, McMackin, McClane, Hall & Bates, Fort Worth, TX, USA; Drakopoulos Law Firm, Athens, Greece; F&W Group, Tel Aviv, Israel; Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP, Brussels, Belgium; Galaxy Systems, Inc., Bethesda, MD, USA; Herrero Brazil, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; IDEPED, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; IPHub Asia Pte Ltd, Singapore, Singapore; Kenny Nach-walter, P.A., Miami, FL, USA; L Soaib Law Firm, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Lay-tin Verner LLP, New York, NY, USA; Leung & Lau, Solicitors, Central, Hong Kong; Lope & Nathan, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; Macleod Dixon LLP, Calgary, AB, Canada; Mallon & Co Lawyers Pty Ltd., Perth, AW, Australia; Michael J Brown Law Office, Livingston, NJ, USA; Miss World Limited, London, UK; Moroglu Arseven Law Firm, Istanbul, Turkey; Moxon & Spriegel LLC, Hud-son, OH, USA; Mutia Trinidad, Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines; National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Golden, CO, USA; Nayan Rawal & Associates, Mumbai, India; Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLLP, Co-lumbia, SC, USA; New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., Boston, MA, USA; Newton Media Ltd, Grantham, UK; Paramarks PC (Formerly Trademark Bureau of S. Knoppel LL M) , Paramaribo, Suriname; Puma North America, Inc., Westford, MA, U.S.; Rasco Klock, et al., Miami, FL, USA; Salih El Amin Intellectual Property, Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain, Bahrain, Salah, Oman & Doha, Qa-tar; Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, Erlangen, Germany; Simba & Simba Advo-cates, Nairobi, Kenya; Stevan Dimitrijevic Law Office in Cooperation with Karanovic & Nikolic, Republic of Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Symbus Law Group, LLC, Washington, DC, USA; Vernon C. Maine PLLC, Nashua, NH, USA; Waddey & Patterson, P.C., Nashville, TN, USA; Trademarkia, Mountain View, CA, USA; Travelex Global Business Payments, Washington, DC, USA; Uline, Inc., Waukegan, IL, USA

In Memoriam

Homer Blair died on December 15, 2009, in San Angelo, Texas, USA. Af-ter working at Westinghouse Electric, Boeing, Kaiser Aluminum and Celanese Corporation, Mr. Blair was Vice President, Patents and Licensing, for 19 years at Itek Corporation in Lexington, Massachusetts. Later, he was a professor of law at Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, New Hampshire. Mr. Blair was president of INTA (then known as the United States Trademark Association) in 1983-1984 and is the only person to have been president of both INTA and the Licensing Executives Society USA/Canada.

AssociAtion news

www.inta.org 3Vol. 65, No. 3

David e. Clarke retired at the end of 2009 as a senior partner at Gowlings LLP in Ot-tawa, Ontario, Canada, after an enviable career in trademark law that began in September 1968. Dur-ing that time he was also a teacher (the University of Ottawa Law School and Queens University Law School) and a frequent lecturer and wrote the “Trademark Invalidity” chapter in Henderson on Trade-marks. Not only has David’s work on trademark invalidity informed Canadian judges and often been cited with approval in their court opinions, but in addition David was judicially requested (ordered) to present it in lecture form, which of course he did.

David has had a longstanding relationship with INTA publications, serving as editor of the former newsletter Remarks, “Trademark News for Business,” and as chair of the Canada and Latin America Subcommittee of the International Amicus Committee. He served on INTA’s Board of Directors from 1992 to 1995 and was on the Board’s Executive Committee. The thing that he has most enjoyed about working on INTA committees is “the people that he has met from all over the world.”

While in law school, David began his career in IP by doing trademark searches and filing pleadings in Canadian courts. After graduation, he accepted a position at the now dissolved firm of McMichael, Winchell & Gottell. Several years later, he encountered a friend in Ottawa who tipped David off that he was leaving Gowlings to take a position at “a firm across the street.” Realizing that his friend had left Gowlings’ trademark department “in the lurch,” David applied for the job and remained with the firm for the next 41 years!

David believes that the most interesting thing about trademarks in Canada is how the issue of distinctiveness is viewed. It appears to him that many members of the bench and the bar have difficulty in wrapping their thinking around the concept of distinctiveness. He thinks that the most important issue in trademark law today is “dealing with the Internet and its lack of connection to historical principles.”

In his retirement, David is pursuing his two hobbies of cooking and acquiring art. He has been cooking since law school, and his interest in art is focused on paintings, particularly Impressionists’ works and landscapes.

Philip shannon, edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP, new York, new York, usA, 2008–2009 intA Bulletin

Features—Members, Benefits & services subcommittee

For Brett Tolpin, the law-and trademarks in particular-seem to run in the family. He is a third-generation attorney and the son of an IP attorney. In fact, Brett and his father now practice trade-mark law together as part of Tolpin & Partners PC of Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Despite his connections, Brett has worked his way up within the profession. At age 12, to earn money for video games, he would type up trademark applications for his dad! Following his graduation from law school, Brett was hired as an examining attorney with the U.S. Trademark Office, where he defended his final refusals to register applications on appeal to the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).

Since its opening, Tolpin & Partners has focused on domestic and international prosecution, appeals, oppositions/cancellations, licensing, due diligence, conflict resolution, litigation and other IP matters. Brett attended his first INTA Annual Meeting in 1999 in Seattle and has attended every one since. He considers these meetings to be one of the best professional experiences of his career, and over the years his involvement with INTA has allowed him to develop his practice and to reach the level of success that he now enjoys.

In return, Brett has certainly made a sizable contribution to the Association. He will soon begin his second term on the USPTO Subcommittee of the Trademark Office Practices Committee (TOPC) after working for two years on the Ex-amination Subcommittee. As a current practitioner and a former examiner, he is well positioned to collaborate effectively with both fellow committee members and INTA staff on the one hand and the U.S. Trademark Office and the TTAB on the other.

Brett finds it interesting that, in the United States, trademark rights ultimately are contingent upon use. Generally, he sees trademark in-fringement on the Internet and the evolving technology available to infringers and trademark owners as one of the more important issues in trademark law today. These thoughts clearly suggest that Brett’s pas-sion for trademarks has transcended his need for video game money!

In his free time, Brett likes to travel, dance with his wife—a pro-fessional dancer who now teaches dance—and spend time with their two children, and conduct pro bono legal work for key causes dear to his heart.

Marie Lussier, chitizPathak, toronto, ontario, canada, co-chair of the intA Bulletin Association news subcommittee

Jim Palik (Avocats-Conseils-France), snapped this photograph of David Clarke in October 2005 in a Burgundy vineyard on a weekend trip to the Côte d’Or (a range of hills in eastern France, southwest of Dijon).

VoLunteer sPotLight

Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878February 1, 20104

Part Two in a Three-Part series: remedies for Counterfeiting

Criminal Penalties (Imprisonment and Fines) for Counterfeiting

Regardless of whether counterfeiting is expressly proscribed by a nation’s laws, counterfeiters may be punished by imprisonment in all of the countries surveyed in this article (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela). Prison sentences, however, vary considerably. In addition to imprisonment, many countries punish trademark infringers by fining them. The chart below summarizes these penalties.

Country Prison Term for Counterfeiting

Fine for Counterfeiting (in U.S. Dollars)

Argentina 3 months – 2 years.3 – 10 years for coun-terfeit food or phar-maceutical products

$36.16 – $5,411.81.Up to $52,000 forcounterfeit food orpharmaceutical products

Bolivia 6 months – 3 yearsBrazil Varies according to the

crime, from 3 months to 1 year, or 1 ‒ 3 months.Depending on specific circumstances the de-tention penalty may be increased by one-third or one-half

Either imprisonment or fine, but not both, when the crime is in relation to trademark infringement

Chile 61 days – 3 years $1,868 – $74,000Colombia 4 – 8 years $6,500 – $370,000Ecuador 3 months – 4 years max. $13,144.50El Salvador 1 – 8 yearsGuatemala 1 – 6 years $6,000 to $90,000Mexico See discussion below. max. $85,000Panama 2 – 6 yearsParaguay Up to 5 years, or up

to 8 years in special circumstances (e.g., massive production, use of child labor)

$10,000 – $30,000 (be-tween 1,000 and 3,000 daily wages)

Peru 2 – 5 yearsUruguay 6 months – 3 yearsVenezuela 1 ‒ 12 months

Mexico has a unique system that imposes different penalties on trademark infringers depending upon the products they sell. The le-gal system differentiates between trademark and copyright infringe-ment and pharmaceutical counterfeiting. For trademark and copy-

right infringement, penalties are three to ten years in jail and fines up to US $85,000. Counterfeiting pharmaceuticals, on the other hand, carries a prison sentence of one to nine years and a maximum fine of US $420,000.

Damages Awarded by Criminal Judges

In the majority of the countries surveyed by this article, damages can be awarded to injured parties, including brand owners, by crim-inal judges. This is true in Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Paraguay and a number of other jurisdictions. Under Chilean and Salvadoran law, criminal judges can award damages only if the crim-inal complaint is joined with a civil action. Similarly, in Colombia, when a criminal action is heard before a civil judge, damages can be awarded to the injured party.

In Mexico, damages can be awarded for an injury sustained by an IP owner, in addition to punitive damages for future suffering and the legal fees incurred by the injured party. Venezuelan courts will award damages in criminal trials, but only after the court’s decision has been rendered; the injured party must then file a claim for dam-ages with a criminal tribunal to receive damages. In Peru, damages may be awarded to the injured party, as well as the legal fees and expenses incurred, though the damages usually are awarded through civil procedure.

In Paraguay, the Criminal Code establishes a procedure to recover damages based on a favorable sentence obtained at the Criminal Court; payment of the awarded damages must be requested within two years of the judgment. An appeal before a criminal court is available, but it does not prevent a plaintiff from initiating a civil action seeking an indemnification.

Brazil and Panama do not impose monetary damages in criminal cases. Neither do Uruguayan courts, although criminal complaints may result in court-ordered seizure and destruction of goods.

Criminal Prosecution for Counterfeiting in latin americaPrepared by the 2008-2009 Anti-counterfeiting and enforcement committee’s

Latin America & caribbean subcommittee, chaired by gustavo P. giay, Marval, o’Farrell & Mairal, Buenos Aires, Argentina

INTA and select member companies throughout the

world are hosting a series of Pre-Annual Meeting

Receptions, planned exclusively for INTA members

and others within the global trademark community.

These receptions present the ideal opportunity to

learn more about the Annual Meeting, including reg-

istration details, hotel information and more, while

enjoying hors d’oeuvres and cocktails

with your peers.

FeAtures

www.inta.org 5Vol. 65, No. 3

Destruction of Infringing Goods

Judges in all the countries surveyed in this article are capable of ordering the destruction of infringing goods as a punishment for criminal counterfeiting. In Panama, Uruguay and Venezuela, the infringing goods may also be donated to charity after all distinctive trademarks have been fully removed from the products.

In Paraguay, seized products can be destroyed even before a final decision is rendered, provided an expert opinion confirms the unau-thorized nature of the products involved.

Additional Penalties for Criminal Counterfeiters

Judges are entitled to order additional measures, such as searches, seizures and injunctions, in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Co-lombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Para-guay and Uruguay.

In Guatemala, Peru and Venezuela, interim measures must be ini-tiated by the public prosecutor, not the judiciary.

Probation as Punishment for Trademark Infringers

Probation is the suspension of prosecution and/or the substitu-tion of criminal sentences with fines or community service. In the vast majority of countries surveyed in this article, probation is avail-able as an alternative punishment for counterfeiting. Often, coun-terfeiters and trademark infringers benefit from probation, which allows them to avoid the harsh retributive consequences that are intended to deter future crimes. As a result, the threat of criminal prosecution does not discourage infringers in such situations.

This is true in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Guatemala, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. In Ecuador and Panama, probation is available where the prison sentence that would be imposed by a judge is no greater than one year. In Venezuela, probation is imposed as an al-

ternative sentence, but it is called a reparation agreement, which enters into force once it is approved by the criminal judge. Under Chilean law, probation is a possibility if the parties agree to it. Other common alternative solutions include restitution, payment, publi-cation of a notice in a newspaper acknowledging culpability and/or destruction of counterfeit goods. In Colombia there is a similar provision called “integral amends” that consists of a reparation of damages that the infringer caused to the titleholder.

El Salvador has additional equivalent measures that can be ap-plied by the judge and do not admit appeal, such as the temporary suspension of the procedure, in which the infringer must abstain from certain conduct (e.g., drinking, traveling) and must remedy the affected party’s damages. The judge determines the amount of damages to be paid. If an infringer does not comply, the judgment will be reopened. A suspension may last from one to four years.

In Mexico it is possible for infringers to reduce their punishment to probation depending on the decision of the judge.

Mandatory Marking Requirements for Criminal Action

Many of the countries surveyed by this article do not impose any mandatory marking requirements upon trademark owners in order for criminal action to be taken against infringers. This is true in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guate-mala, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela.

In Chile, all registered trademarks must also display the words “Registered Trademark” or “M.R.” or the symbol ® for criminal action to be taken against counterfeiters. Mexican courts require trademarks to include ®, “M.R.” or the words “Marca Registrada.”

Part Three: Legal Proceedings will appear in the February 15 INTA Bulletin

Whether you are from a law firm or in-house, you will find this program to be filled with useful and practical information that will help you and your business counterpart understand each other’s needs and expectations. You’ll learn:

• how other companies and firms are dealing with the troubled economy• what companies are looking for from their foreign associates• how law firms can provide excellent service to in-house clients• tips on preparing winning responses to requests for proposals• how outside counsel can get to know their business clients better and how they select firms to do the work

In-house counsel will also be able to benchmark and validate their practices against other companies and acquire valuable information.

Visit www.inta.org/go/cpp2010.

early bird registration ends January 29. register now.

FeAtures

Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878February 1, 20106

Likelihood of confusion surveys often play a significant role in trademark litigation. The predominant survey formats acceptable to U.S. courts are the Eveready and Squirt tests. The question, then, is which one you should use.

The Eveready Test

The Eveready test was first set forth in Union Carbide Corp. v. Ever-Ready, Inc., 531 F.2d 366, 385-88 (7th Cir. 1976). Under the Eveready test, the surveyor puts the defendant’s products in front of the survey respondents and asks questions to elicit whether they believe the defendant’s products are the plaintiff’s or are falsely as-sociated with the plaintiff. Under the Eveready test, there is no side-by-side comparison. There is no need to show the plaintiff’s product because that could detract from the strength of the survey results. If your survey results show that some percentage—the courts differ on the requisite percentage, with some finding confusion with as little as 10 percent—of the respondents having reviewed the defendant’s products state that they believe that the item either is the plaintiff’s or is endorsed by or associated with the plaintiff, then likelihood of confusion appears all but inevitable. Because the survey respondents never see the plaintiff’s products, any results showing a false con-nection or association—assuming proper survey controls—are said to be probative evidence of a likelihood of confusion as to the true source of the product.

The Squirt Test

The Squirt test was first set forth in Squirtco v. Seven-Up Co., 628 F.2d 1086, 1089 n.4 (8th Cir. 1980). Under the Squirt test, the defendant’s and plaintiff’s products are placed side by side and ques-tions are asked in order to elicit whether source confusion exists in the mind of the survey respondent. Naturally, there is the possibility of getting some level of false positives or survey “noise” given human nature and the preternatural need to connect things or look for asso-ciations. However, if the products are not found in close proximity to one another in the marketplace, using Squirt is a mistake. Such survey results justifiably will be challenged, as the survey would not be considered an accurate reflection of marketplace realities.

With this background in mind, you can quickly deduce that if you are the plaintiff and have a weak mark, Eveready is not the test to use. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff’s attorney to realistically gauge the strength of the mark in question. A mark may well be inherently distinctive but not be a particularly strong mark because of lack of recognition in the marketplace. One way to mea-sure the mark’s strength is to conduct a quick pilot, or test, survey. With these results you can then discuss with your client and survey expert what survey method would prove most advantageous from your client’s perspective. Examination of a few scenarios will prove instructive.

Some Scenarios

(1) The plaintiff believes it has a strong mark and the defendant’s products are found side by side with or in close proximity to the plaintiff’s products.

This is the quintessential Eveready situation, and the plaintiff

What u.s. litigants should Consider When selecting a survey Method

should use the Eveready test. From the defendant’s perspective, Eveready would also be the test of choice because a Squirt test could be expected to lead to an even higher survey incidence of source confusion.

(2) The plaintiff believes it has a strong mark but the defendant’s products are not found side by side with or in close proximity to the plaintiff’s products.

Eveready would be the only choice in this scenario for both the plaintiff and the defendant. As the products are not found side by side or in close proximity, Squirt’s methodology is irrelevant.

(3) The plaintiff has a mark of moderate strength and the defendant’s products are found side by side with or in close proximity to the plaintiff’s products.

This factual scenario is where most trademark fact patterns fall. The plaintiff believes its mark to be a bit stronger than it actually is, and the defendant assumes the mark to be weaker than it actually is. A litigant should not rely on pride but rather on an analytical as-sessment of what the logical outcome of a survey’s results would be. One can use an undocumented pilot survey that is discussed with the survey expert or a simple internal survey within the company in order to ascertain what would be the actual real-world survey results under either method.

Another salient issue to consider is the actual allegations in the complaint. If the complaint alleges dilution or that the plaintiff’s mark is well recognized, the defendant should utilize the Eveready test. Early survey results under this test supplied to the plaintiff showing only minimal confusion are very probative and may lead to an early settlement favorable to the defendant.

(4) The plaintiff’s mark is of moderate strength and the defendant’s products are not found side by side with or in close proximity to the plaintiff’s products.

Eveready would once again be the test of choice here, given that the products are not found side by side or in close proximity.

(5) The plaintiff has a weak mark and the defendant’s products are found side by side with or in close proximity to the plaintiff’s products.

This is the quintessential Squirt model. The plaintiff does not want to make the mistake of exaggerating how strong or well rec-ognized its mark is. If it does so, it provides the defendant with the opportunity to choose the Eveready test for its survey, which may well prove dispositive of no source confusion. As a result, if your case falls within this fact pattern, the plaintiff should not provide the defendant with the ammunition needed to derail its case by hyp-ing how well recognized its mark is or throwing in a dilution claim unless it is factually justified. The defendant should pounce on the plaintiff’s hubris. The defendant’s successful use of Eveready in this context would likely prove dispositive.

(6) The plaintiff has a weak mark and the defendant’s products are not found side by side with or in close proximity to the plaintiff’s products.

This scenario is the death knell to all plaintiffs. The plaintiff will not be able to use Squirt because the products are not found side

Jeffrey r. cohen, Millen, white, Zelano & Branigan, Arlington, Virginia, usA

Continued on next page

FeAtures

www.inta.org 7Vol. 65, No. 3

by side or in close proximity and therefore will be forced to use Eveready. The plaintiff’s attorney and its survey expert should ex-plain to the plaintiff what the logical results of the survey would be. The plaintiff may well look to settle the case quickly or forgo a sur-vey, recognizing that a survey might be very detrimental to its case.

Final Thoughts

Before deciding on a survey method, counsel for either party

should realistically consider the value of a survey in the context of the case. A well-conducted survey will easily cost in excess of US $50,000. It is true that nowadays courts do expect surveys to be conducted in most trademark cases. Given this expectation, take your time to realistically assess your case under the rubric discussed above. With that toolset in mind, you will make better-informed decisions regarding the survey method, which may have a decisive impact on your case.

selecting a survey Method Continued from previous page

In a recent ruling, the 35th Federal Court in Rio de Janeiro decided a court action filed by the Brazilian company LG Informática Ltda. against LG Electrics Investment Ltd. and its Brazilian subsidiary, both part of the LG Electronics Group of South Korea, partially in favor of the plaintiff. Specifically, the court found that LG In-formática’s earlier commercial name rights gave it priority over the trademark LG in the field of computers.

The judge’s ruling canceled two registrations for the mark LG owned by LG Electrics Investment, covering computer equipment belonging in Class 9, and ordered the Brazilian National Institute of Industrial Property to reject five pending applications in Class 9 and one in Class 38 for LG, covering goods and services related to computer hardware and software. Further, neither defendant may register the mark LG in relation to computer software or hardware in Brazil. Finding that LG Informática’s priority was limited to the field of computers, however, the court declined to cancel or order rejected other LG Electrics Investment registrations and applica-

BrazIllocal Company has Prior right to lg Mark for Computers

tions covering scientific, medical, dental and veterinary equipment and cellular telephone devices in Class 9.

In a second court action between the same parties, also concern-ing registrations and applications for the trademark LG covering goods and services in Class 9 but unrelated to the field of comput-ers, the 35th Federal Court rejected all of LG Informática’s claims, including the plaintiff’s request for a general order prohibiting the defendants from using the mark LG in Brazil.

Both rulings (35th Federal Circuit in Rio de Janeiro – Court Ac-tion Docket Nos. 2006.51.01.518113-3 and 2006.51.01.520589-7) are subject to appeal.

contributor: ricardo Pinho, Daniel Advogados, rio de Janeiro;Verifier: walter w. Palmer, Pinheiro Palmer Advogados, rio de Janeiro,

vice chair of the intA Bulletin committee

On November 19, 2009, the European Court of First Instance (CFI) ruled that the Community trade mark (CTM) CANNABIS was descriptive for “beer” in Class 32 and for “wine, spirits, liqueurs, sparkling beverages, sparking wine, champagne” in Class 33.

Mr. Giampietro Torresan filed a CTM application for CANNA-BIS on February 12, 1999. The mark matured into registration on April 16, 2003, for products in Classes 32 and 33 and for services of “providing of food and drink, restaurants, self-service restau-rants, public houses, ice cream parlours, pizzerias” in Class 42. On June 27, 2003, the German company Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG filed before OHIM a request for invalidation of the trademark in respect of the products claimed in Classes 32 and 33.

On March 9, 2005, the OHIM Cancellation Division found the claim grounded and determined that the mark CANNABIS was de-scriptive for the products. Torresan appealed, but his appeal was dis-missed on June 29, 2006, by the OHIM Second Board of Appeal, which upheld the Cancellation Division’s finding that the word “cannabis” designated in everyday language either a textile plant or a narcotic substance and therefore would be a clear and direct indi-cation for consumers as to the characteristics of the goods at hand. The CFI confirmed the Board’s view.

For the CFI, “cannabis” could actually or potentially refer to one

eurOPeaN uNIONCFI upholds CaNNaBIs as Descriptive in Classes 32 and 33

of the ingredients that might be used in the manufacture of the products covered by the contested trademark, especially in view of the supply of beverages containing hemp already in existence on the market. The existence of several meanings in relation to “cannabis” was regarded as having no influence on its descriptiveness, as a direct and specific relationship existed between only one of the meanings and the goods involved.

People purchasing a beer branded CANNABIS probably would do so because they were convinced that it contained cannabis and were attracted by the possibility of obtaining from the beverage sensations very near those felt from the consumption of cannabis in another form. The average consumer, reasonably well informed, observant and circumspect, would therefore immediately and with-out further thought make a connection between the mark and the features of the products for which it was registered.

The CFI’s decision was indeed quite strict. It is intriguing that the mark was not challenged on the ground of being contrary to public order, which could have resulted in a more borderline situation.

contributors: Franck soutoul and Jean-Philippe Bresson, inlex iP expertise, Paris, Verifier: Vanessa Bouchara, cabinet Bouchara, Paris. Mr. Bresson is a

member of the intA Bulletin Law & Practice—europe subcommittee

LAw & PrActice

Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878February 1, 20108

On September 22, 2009, Advocate General Miguel Poiares Mad-uro delivered his highly anticipated opinion on questions referred from the French Court de Cassation (joint cases Google France & Google Inc. v. Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. (C-236/08), Google France v. Viaticum S.A. & Luteciel S.A.R.L. (C-237/08) and Google France v. CNRRH, Pierre-Alexis Thonet, Bruno Raboin & Tiger SARL (C-238/08)).

The Advocate General concluded that the offering of keywords for purchase and the subsequent display of so-called sponsored links alongside natural search results did not in themselves amount to trademark infringement.

In addition to its search engine service, Google operates its Ad-Words system, which enables advertisers to select keywords, with the effect that their advertisements (sponsored links) are displayed to Internet users alongside the natural search results in response to the input of those keywords as a search request.

In his opinion, the Advocate General distinguished between Google’s offering of keywords for purchase to advertisers and the subsequent display of sponsored links alongside natural search re-sults.

The Advocate General came to the conclusion that Google did not commit trademark infringement by allowing advertisers to se-lect keywords in its AdWords system that corresponded to trade-marks, as no product or service was being sold to the general public; rather, the trademarks were used for the AdWords selection pro-cedure between Google and the advertisers. Such use was not use made in relation to goods or services identical or similar to those covered by the trademarks.

As for the second use, there is a link between the keywords that corresponds to the trademarks and the goods or services available from the advertised site. Here the Advocate General considered

eurOPeaN uNIONeCJ advocate general: google’s adWords Do Not Constitute Trademark Infringement

whether the use by Google affected or was liable to affect the es-sential function of the trademark—to guarantee to consumers the origin of the goods or services. He concluded that the presentation of the ad from the Internet user’s search query did not lead to any risk of confusion. Internet users would only make an assessment as to the origin of the goods and services advertised on the basis of the content of the ad and by visiting the advertised sites; no assessment would be based solely on the fact that the ad was displayed as a spon-sored link in response to keywords corresponding to trademarks.

Next, Advocate General Poiares Maduro asked whether Google’s use of keywords corresponding to trademarks affected other func-tions of a trademark, in particular, whether it took unfair advantage of, or was detrimental to, the distinctive character or reputation of the trademark. He considered that when assessing Google’s use of trademarks as keywords the court would have to find the balance between freedom of expression and freedom of commerce on the one hand and the trademark proprietor’s interests on the other. The Advocate General adopted a broad approach and concluded that the need for freedom of expression and commerce outweighed the need to protect the investment in trademark protection. Otherwise, trademark protection would create serious obstacles to any informa-tion delivery system, such as product review or price comparison sites, and potentially to the very nature of the Internet.

If the Court of Justice follows the Advocate General’s opinion, this balancing exercise will be a new development in European trademark law.

contributor: wiebke Baars, taylor wessing, hamburg, germany;Verifier: Martin Krause, haseltine Lake, Bristol, uK.

Mr. Krause is a member of and Ms. Baars is co-chair of theintA Bulletin Law & Practice—europe subcommittee.

On December 18, 2009, the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Indian Parliament) gave its accord to the Trade Marks (Amendment) Bill, 2009, laying the foundation for a simplified process of registration of trademarks in the country. With this approval the Madrid Proto-col crossed the first obstacle toward implementation in India.

The Bill seeks the following significant changes:

• Prescribe a fixed period of 18 months for the registration of trademarks, confirming the provisions of the Madrid Protocol.

• Omit Chapter X of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, dealing with special provisions for textile goods, as it has become irrelevant.

• Provide a uniform time limit of four months for opposing pub-lished applications by removing the discretion of the Registrar to extend the time for filing the notice of opposition.

• The provisions imposing restrictions on assignment or trans-mission that would create multiple rights or rights in multiple jurisdictions have been omitted in the Bill to simplify the pro-cess of transferring ownership of trademarks and to bring the law generally in tune with international practice.

INDIastep Taken Toward accession to the Madrid Protocol

• Incorporate into the original Act a new Chapter IV A, spelling out special protection for International Registrations under the Madrid Protocol.

In order to implement the Madrid Protocol, the Trade Marks Registry offices need to enlarge infrastructure, human resources and data management at various levels. The government has already taken steps in this regard, and a proposal for the modernization of the offices to put them on a par with global standards has been sub-mitted to the competent authority.

The Bill will now be introduced in the Rajya Sabha (Upper House of the Parliament); once approved there, it will be sent to the presi-dent. The Bill will become an Act of Parliament after receiving the assent of the president.

contributor: sonam handa, chadha & chadha, Advocates, new Delhi,intA Bulletin Law & Practice—Asia–Pacific subcommittee;

Verifier: rahul Vidhani, Vidhani Associates, new Delhi

LAw & PrActice

www.inta.org 9Vol. 65, No. 3

On November 30, 2009, the Trade Court of Paris held that eBay International AG and eBay Inc. failed to comply with the injunc-tions resulting from its previous decision. The court imposed a fine of €1.7 million. Since the earlier ruling, there had been over 1,300 incidences in which sellers had advertised cosmetics or perfumes manufactured by the plaintiffs or represented as being manufac-tured by them. The fact that eBay had hired 87 people to monitor the problem was found to be insufficient.

In late 2006, four companies of the LVMH Group—Parfums Christian Dior, Kenzo Parfums, Parfums Givenchy and Guerlain—filed suit against the eBay companies in the Commercial Court seeking to stop the sale of perfumes and cosmetic products manu-factured by them, or represented as being manufactured by them, on eBay’s auction platforms.

On June 30, 2008, the eBay companies were condemned to pay almost €40 million to the plaintiffs. According to the Commercial Court, eBay had violated the plaintiffs’ selective distribution net-works, as it was under the obligation to ensure that activities on its auction websites were not illegal. The court concluded that eBay’s websites compromised the plaintiffs’ distribution networks and could damage the reputation of the plaintiffs’ products and trademarks.

FraNCeround Three in French Battle of lVMh and eBay

The court therefore ordered that the eBay companies stop the sale of products manufactured by the plaintiffs, or represented as being manufactured by them, on its auction platforms and stop the use of the plaintiffs’ trademarks by eBay sellers (in particular in the titles and descriptions of the products). Each of these orders was subject to a fine of €50,000 per day for failure to comply. Subsequently, the plaintiffs took the view that eBay had not taken sufficient measures to comply with the court’s orders, and they brought a further action before the Commercial Court.

This newest case demonstrates the extent to which LVMH is pre-pared to combat the sale of its products on eBay’s auction platforms. Following its June 30, 2008, victory, LVMH also successfully sued eBay over the unauthorized use of its trademarks as keywords to trigger sponsored links. The latest decision is thus the third ruling in favor of LVMH in France against eBay.

contributors: Franck soutoul and Jean-Philippe Bresson, inlex iP expertise, Paris, Verifier: Vanessa Bouchara, cabinet Bouchara, Paris. Mr. Bresson is a

member of the intA Bulletin Law & Practice—europe subcommittee

On November 25, 2009, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce of China approved and published “Plan for Trademark Work to Live up to International Standards (2008 to 2012).” The plan has two goals regarding trademark examination work: (1) to complete the accumulated work on trademark applications for reg-istration and trademark appeals by the end of 2010, and (2) to limit the time of examination for trademark applications for registration

ChINasaIC Issues Plans regarding Trademark examination

to 10 months and to limit that for trademark oppositions and trade-mark appeals to 20 months by the end of 2012.

contributor: Julia hongbo Zhong, Lee and Li – Leaven iPr Agency Ltd., Beijing, intA Bulletin Law & Practice—Asia-Pacific subcommittee;

Verifier: Yan sun, china trademark Association, Beijing

On December 7, 2009, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) announced a modification to the Implementation Rules for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). This modification now permits elec-tronic filing. In fact, beginning March 1, 2010, electronic filing will be mandatory.

The UDRP is an administrative dispute resolution policy de-signed to provide quick and inexpensive resolution to certain kinds of domain name disputes in all generic top-level domains (gTLDs) (i.e., .aero, .asia, .biz, .cat, .com, .coop, .info, .jobs, .mobi, .mu-seum, .name, .net, .org, .pro, .tel, and .travel). Under the modified rules, the parties to a UDRP proceeding will submit all filings (both the complaint and the response) via email. The UDRP provider must then notify the respondent of the complaint by mailing writ-ten notice of the complaint and an explanatory cover sheet to the respondent. The UDRP provider is no longer required to forward a hard copy of the entire complaint.

UDRP providers may begin accepting electronic filings imme-

uDrPleaner and greener: ICaNN announces (almost) Paperless uDrP Procedures

diately, and February 28, 2010, will be the last day any provider may accept hard-copy filings. Beginning March 1, 2010, all filings must be electronic. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), one of four UDRP providers, estimates electronic filing will save up to one million pages of paper each year and reduce the time and costs associated with hard-copy filings.

In addition to WIPO, current UDRP providers are the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Center, the National Arbitra-tion Forum and the Czech Arbitration Court. Practitioners should check with each provider for supplemental rules and early accep-tance of electronic filing. Further information, including a copy of the modified Implementation Rules, is available at www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-07dec09-en.htm.

contributor: elizabeth K. Brock, harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLc, troy, Michigan, usA; Verifier: Lisa A. iverson, neal & McDevitt, northfield, illinois, usA.

Both are members of the intA Bulletin Law & Practice—united states and canada subcommittee.

LAw & PrActice

Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878February 1, 201010

The legal battle between McDonald’s Corporation and the local curry food business McCurry Restaurant (KL) Sdn Bhd took a final bow on September 8, 2009, as the former’s attempted challenge of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in respect of passing off failed on preliminary considerations in the country’s top appellate court. In April 2009, the Court of Appeal had ruled it was also wrong to assume that McDonald’s had a monopoly on the use of the prefix “Mc-” (see INTA Bulletin Vol. 64 No. 14, August 1, 2009).

McDonald’s grievance centered on its complaint of the taking of unfair advantage by the “unlawful” use of its source identifier “Mc-,” which had been used extensively in its burgers and French fries busi-ness and the potential for erosion of the goodwill or reputation and the benefit of the good name of the McDonald’s business.

The Federal Court unanimously dismissed McDonald’s applica-tion for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal decision, with costs of RM 10,000 (US $2,990/ €2,064) awarded to McCurry, on the grounds that the questions referred to the Federal Court were not properly framed and did not relate to the Court of Appeal’s findings. The two questions were: (1) whether once the prefix “Mc-” was used by McCurry, the public in its mind would associate Mc-Curry with McDonald’s; and (2) whether the use of “Mc-” would reduce the importance of “Mc-” to McDonald’s. Chief Judge Tan Sri Arifin Zakaria, who headed the three-member panel, which in-cluded Federal Court Judges Datuk Wira Mohd Ghazali Mohd Yu-soff and Datuk James Foong, delivered the judgment. (McDonald’s Corp. v. McCurry Restaurant (KL) Sdn Bhd, Civil Application No.

H + H Partner AG is the owner of Swiss trademark registrations for GOTTHARD (No. 537423) and GOTTHARD & Design (No. 539910) in various classes.

Based on these trademarks, H + H sued the company Oeko-Energie AG Gotthard, an energy company domiciled in the Gotthard area, in

order to stop it from using the term Gotthard in its company name. Oeko-Energie AG Gotthard filed a counterclaim to seek invalida-tion of the plaintiff’s GOTTHARD trademarks covering fuels.

Gotthard is a well-known Swiss mountain area and also an im-portant traffic route between Germany and Italy.

The High Court of the Canton Uri dismissed the action, allowed the counterclaim and declared both trademarks null and void in re-spect to fuels in Class 4. H + H subsequently appealed the decision to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the deci-sion of the High Court (Case 4A_324/2009, Oct. 8, 2009). It high-lighted that a known geographical name is excluded from trademark protection if the consumer understands it as indicating an origin of the goods in question. Every producer and manufacturer must be allowed to use the geographical indication in order to label the source of origin of its products. The Court stated that because the

MalaYsIa

sWITzerlaND

No Further appeal in McCurrY restaurant Dispute

geographical Trademarks in Peril? swiss supreme Court Takes a strict approach

08(f )-112-2009(W) (Fed. Ct. Sept. 8, 2009) (unreported).)The Court found that the questions did not satisfy the require-

ments for leave to appeal to the Federal Court under Section 96 (conditions of appeal) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Revised 1972). Section 96, in pertinent part, reads as follows:

Subject to any rules regulating the proceedings of the Federal Court in respect of appeals from the Court of Appeal, an ap-peal shall lie from the Court of Appeal to the Federal Court with the leave of the Federal Court—

(a) from any judgment or order of the Court of Appeal in respect of any civil cause or matter decided by the High Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction involving a question of general principle decided for the first time or a question of importance upon which further argument and a decision of the Federal Court would be to public advantage; or

(b) from any decision as to the effect of any provision of the Constitution including the validity of any written law re-lating to any such provision.

The eight-year battle over the McCurry Restaurant is now over.

possibility that fuels might be produced and offered in the Gotthard region one day could not be excluded, the word needed to be kept free for competitors and the word mark was therefore null and void. Regarding the device mark, the Court found that the design could be perceived as a mountain surrounded by a cloud and could there-fore be perceived as a depiction of the Gotthard region. It stressed that trademarks consisting of a geographical indication and a design can be protected only if the overall impression is dominated by the design. Here, the Court held that the word Gotthard was not a mi-nor element, and therefore it invalidated the trademark.

This decision may have a drastic impact on owners of trademarks including geographical terms, especially because many device marks consisting primarily of geographical indications may now be de-clared null and void in litigation before the courts. In any case, it re-mains to be seen whether the Supreme Court’s very strict approach will be adopted by other courts and authorities. Regarding device marks, the suggested practice appears even more restrictive than the current practice of the Swiss Trademark Office.

The Supreme Court’s decision is available online in German at www.bger.ch.

contributor: Peter huang, Peter huang & richard, Pulau tikus, Penang,intA Bulletin Law & Practice—Asia–Pacific subcommittee;

Verifier: clara c. F. Yip, MarQonsult iP, Petaling Jaya, selangor

contributor: Marco Bundi, Meisser & Partners, Klosters;Verifier: christoph gasser, staiger, schwald & Partner Ltd., Zurich.

Mr. Bundi is a member of and Mr. gasser is co-chair of theintA Bulletin Law & Practice—europe subcommittee.

LAw & PrActice

www.inta.org 11Vol. 65, No. 3

On August 6, 2009, the Taiwan Intellec-tual Property Office’s (TIPO’s) decision rejecting the application by Eitsetien International Co. Ltd. for registration of a squirrel device mark (Application No. 096053465, pictured far right), and the rejection of the applicant’s subsequent appeal by the Committee of Appeal of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, were overturned by the Intellectual Property Court. The court noted that because a squirrel is a kind of animal that exists in the natural world, and because evidence submitted by the applicant showed that vari-ous prior-granted trademarks employed complete or partial squirrel devices, the prior-registered trademark cited by the TIPO (pictured left above) lacked distinctiveness when compared to the disputed trademark and was not similar to that mark.

Notwithstanding Eitsetien’s use of the disputed trademark for many years and through various distribution channels, including famous department stores and online shopping websites, the ap-plication was initially rejected because the TIPO considered the trademark to be similar to the prior-registered trademark. After its

TaIWaNCommon squirrel Device Deemed to lack Distinctiveness

appeal was also rejected, Eitsetien filed an administrative lawsuit with the Intellectual Property Court. After reviewing the argu-ments and evidence, the court overruled the previous decisions and instructed the TIPO to reexamine the disputed trademark applica-tion, for the following reasons:

• Both the cited prior trademark and the dis-puted trademark employed the common squirrel device with-out special design, and thus had little distinctiveness.

• Even though the marks covered similar goods, they could not be considered to be similar because the similarities between them were all common features of squirrels in the natural world.

The court’s decision is subject to further appeal.

contributor: tony chen, A & Finet international Patent & Law office, taipei;Verifier: tzu-nan huang, secure international Patent & trademark office, taipei

The Tunisian Trademark Office, in an attempt to facilitate trade-mark registration and renewal procedures in the country, issued the following regulations on January 1, 2010:

• The publication of trademarks, patents and designs will be dis-tributed on CDs, without hard copies. This will prevent the delay of publication in the print press, and the time frame for completing registration will be reduced.

• The official fees for renewal certificates of trademarks registra-

TuNIsIaTrademark registration and renewal Procedures Facilitated

tion should be paid along with the renewal application fees. Previously, these fees were paid after the issuance of the cer-tificate. Consequently, the issuance of the renewal certificate will be easier because the certificate fees will not have to be requested from the agents.

contributor: ibtisam Awadat, ag-iP-news Agency, Amman, Jordan;Verifier: Fathi Abu-nemeh, Abu-ghazaleh intellectual Property, tunis, tunisia

On December 14, 2009, the Syrian Minister of Economy and Trade, Dr. Amer Husni Lutfi, issued Ministerial Decree No. 2953, which increases the official fees for publication, registration or renewal of trademark and design applications for applicant companies.

The Ministerial Decree entered into force as of January 1, 2010.Consequently, the new official fee for publication, registration or

renewal of any trademark application or renewal application/reg-istration (covering 10 words in the list of goods) has doubled, to 3,000 Syrian Pounds (US $66/ €45.50).

sYrIaOfficial Fees for Trademark and Design Publication Increased

Similarly, the Ministerial Decree has raised the publication or renewal fee for any design application/registration to 3,000 Syrian Pounds.

Other publication fees remain unchanged.

contributor: ibtisam Awadat, ag-iP-news Agency, Amman, Jordan;Verifier: Mohammad A. Azmeh, Abu-ghazaleh intellectual Property (AgiP)

syria office, Damascus, syria

The Trademark Reporter seeks contributions from trademark professionals and is particularly looking to expand its coverage of international issues by international writers.

Contact the Managing Editor at tmr@inta.org or visit The Trademark Reporter portion of INTA’s website at www.inta.org

The Law Journal of the International Trademark Association

UNITED STATES ANNUAL REVIEW

The Sixtieth Year of

Administration of the U.S. Trademark (Lanham) Act

of 1946

Theodore H. Davis, Jr. Jordan S. Weinstein

Vol. 98 January-February, 2008 No. 1

®

LAw & PrActice

International Trademark association655 Third Avenue, 10th FloorNew York, NY 10017 USA+1-212-768-9887 • f: +1-212-768-7796www.inta.org • info@inta.org

eMaIl aDDressesINTA Bulletin: bulletin@inta.orgCustomer Service: customerservice@inta.orgPrograms: meetings@inta.orgJob Bank: jobbank@inta.orgPolicy & Advocacy: tmaffairs@inta.orgPublic Relations: publicrelations@inta.orgPublications: publications@inta.orgRoundtables: roundtables@inta.org

WWW.INTa.OrgVisit the INTA Bulletin on www.inta.org to download the currentissue or to search issues from January 1, 2000 to the present.

exhibitions and sponsorshipTo inquire about sponsorship or exhibition opportunities for INTA’s events, visit www.inta.orgor email sponsorship@inta.org

International TRademark Association

See you in

Register by March 26 and take advantage of the early bird registration fee!

www.inta.org/go/boston