Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:52:36.930Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pan American Conventions on Industrial Property

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Stephen P. Ladas
Stephen P. Ladas*
Affiliation:
Harvard University and Radcliffe College Bureau of International Research
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Sixth International Conference of American States which met at Havana on January 16, 1928, adopted a resolution, proposed by the Argentine delegation, recommending to the Governing Board of the Pan American Union “ the calling of a special conference of representatives of the Union, to be held at such place and date as it may designate, for the purpose of studying in its amplest scope the problem of the Inter-American protection of trade marks.” 1 The conclusions of that conference are to be forwarded, through the medium of the Pan American Union, to the consideration of the different governments without the need of a later reference to the Seventh International Conference of American States.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , October 1928 , pp. 803 - 821
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1928

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Sexta Conferencia International Americana, Acta Final, Habana, 1928, p. 87.

2 See Documentary Information Compiled by the Pan American Union relative to the Pan American Trade Mark Conference, Washington, 1928, p. 1.

3 Ibid., p. 9.

4 At the last conference of the Union at The Hague in 1925 a new Arrangement for the International Deposit of Designs and Models was signed by ten countries. See text of these acts as revised at The Hague in 41 La Propriété Industrielle (1925), 221.

5 This fee was raised to 150 francs at the conference of The Hague in 1925. But the fee for each additional mark is seventy-five francs. The fee may be paid in two instalments.

6 See text of the conventions in 2 Tratados, Convenciones, Protocolos de la Republica Argentina (1901), pp. 120 and 127. See also XVIII De Martens, N.R., 2ma Sér. 421 and 453.

7 Sen. Doc. 177, 51st Cong., 1st Sess.

8 See text of convention in Spanish, English, and French in Second Pan American Conference, Minutes and Documents, Mexico, 1902, pp. 723 ff.

9 See VI De Martens, N.R., 3me Sér. 206; also Fifth International Conference of American States, Handbook of the Pan American Union, Washington, 1922, p. 10.

10 Ratified by all the signatory states, February and March, 1908. See 100 Br. & For. St. Papers, 835.

11 See “ La Protection intemationale de la propriété inteUectuelle dans l'Amérique Centrale” in 27 Propriété Industrielle, 1911, p. 50.

12 See Tercera Conferencia Internadonal Americana, Adas, Besoludmes, Documentos, Rio de Janeiro, 1907, pp. 105, 249, 275, 641.

13 The convention was ratified by eight countries: Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Nicaragua, and Salvador. See VI De Martens, N. R., 3me Ser., 221, and Fourth International Conference of American States, Sen. Doc. No. 744, 61st Cong. 3d Sess., p. 98.

14 Quoted by the Propriété Industrielle, 1907, pp. 129, 130.

15 Cuarta Conferencia International Americana, Buenos Aires, 1911, Vol. I, pp. 340-343 and 396.

16 See texts in Spanish, English, Portuguese and French in 38 Stat. at L. Pt. 2, p. 1811, and 39 Stat. at L. Pt. 2, p. 1675; also in Spanish only in Cuarta Conferencia International Americana, Vol. I, pp. 493 and 507.

17 Both conventions were ratified by: Brazil, November 9, 1914; Costa Rica, August 7, 1915; Dominican Republic, April 18,1912; Ecuador, November 4,1913; Guatemala, April 27, 1912; Honduras, February 13, 1913; Nicaragua, April 23, 1912; Panama, June 12, 1913; Paraguay, August 22, 1913; United States, March 21, 1911; Uruguay, August 7, 1919.

Cuba ratified the Patent Convention on December 23,1912, and the Trade Mark Convention on June 2, 1914.

Haiti ratified the Patent Convention on October 8,1918, and the Trade Mark Convention on October 31, 1918. Peru ratified the Trade Mark Convention on April 19, 1920.

18 See Fifth International Conference of American States, Handbook of the Pan American Union, Washington, 1922, p. 16. Guatemala notified its withdrawal March 18, 1920; Nicaragua, July 16, 1920; Costa Rica, September 30, 1921; Honduras, February 17, 1922.

19 For instance, Article 3, concerning the period of priority, and Article 5, concerning the moment from which priority begins. Also Articles 8 and 9 taken from the Convention of Montevideo speak only of patents, whereas the convention of 1910 concerns also industrial designs or models.

20 See Allen, Design Patentability, 9 Journal of Patent Office Society (1927), 298; cf-7 (1926), ibid., 540; Coppieters, Protection des Oeuvres d'art applique, Bruxelles, 1919, pp. 10, 32; and 25 La Propriétéi Industrielle (1919), 155, 172.

21 The originals are as follows: “ que se destinard i, cubrir los gastos de Registro Internacional de la respectiva Oficina;” “ que se destinard para cobrir as despezas do registro internacional da respectiva Secretaria;” “ qui sera destinée á couvrir les dépenses du Registre International du Bureau respectif.”

22 82 See 19 Patent and Trade Mark Review (1921), 337.

23 In fact, its organization began on December 6,1917, when the Cuban Government by a decree of this date decided to establish the Bureau and appointed Dr. Mario Didz Irizar as its Director. See 24 Leyes y Decretos de Cuba (1917), p. 528.

24 This information is given the present writer by the courtesy of the Director General of the Pan American Union in his letter of June 27, 1928.

25 See Preliminary Resolutions for the Consideration of the United States Section of the International High Commission, Washington, 1915, p. 21; H. R. Doc. 1788, 64th Cong., 2dSess., p. 21; Sen. Doc. No. 739, 64th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 116; Moore, The Work of the Inter American High Commission, an address delivered at the Pan American Financial Conference, Washington, 1920, p. 6.

26 See Convention for the Protection of Commercial, Industrial and Agricultural Trade Marks and Commercial Names (pamphlet of the Central Executive Council, Inter-American High Commission), Washington, 1923, Introduction

27 Report of the Delegates of the United States of America to the Fifth International Conference of American States, Washington, 1924, p. 17.

28 See text in English, Spanish, French and Portuguese in 44 Stat. at L. Pt. 3, p. 2494; also in United States Treaty Series, No. 751.

29 See Verbatim Record of the Plenary Sessions of the Fifth International Conference of American States, Santiago de Chile, 1923, Vol. I, p. 325.

30 ibid., p. 326.

31 The Subcommittee on Trade Mark Protection of the United States Section of the Inter-American High Commission had proposed an amendment of the convention of 1910 in this respect which seemed sound. The grounds for cancellation of a registered or filed mark should be: that an application for Inter-American registration has been filed in the country of origin prior to the date of the application for registration which it is intended to cancel, and that the registrant had knowledge beforehand of the use of the mark in its country of origin. See Pamphlet of the Inter-American High Commission, “ Proposed Revision of the Convention on Trade Marks between the American States of 1910, ” p. 5.

32 A property right in a trade mark is acquired by registration in Argentina, Bolivia Chile, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Venezuela. In Brazil, Salvador, and Uruguay registration becomes attributive of property at the expiry of a certain period (five years in Brazil and Salvador and two years in Uruguay). In Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras, and Nicaragua by registration a prima fade evidence of use of, and consequently of property in, the trade mark is acquired.

33 According to information given the present writer by the Director General of the Pan American Union, letter dated June 25, 1928.

34 The dates of ratification are as follows: Brazil, January 12, 1924; Cuba, August 2, 1924; the Dominican Republic, October 7, 1925; Haiti, June 22, 1925; Paraguay, May 26, 1924; and the United States, February 24, 1925. (According to information given the present writer by the Director General of the Pan American Union, letter dated July 26, 1928).

35 See Proclamation by the President of the United States in 44 Stat. at L. Pt. 3, p. 2526.

36 According to information given the present writer by the courtesy of the Director General of the Pan American Union, letter dated June 27, 1928.

37 Inman, Pan-American Conferences and their Results, Austin, 1924, p. 34.

38 Convention for the Protection of Commercial, Industrial and Agricultural Trade Marks , and Commercial Names (pamphlet of the Inter-American High Commission), Introduction.

39 Characteristic of the spirit and method of drafting these conventions is the suggestion of the Inter-American Bureau of Havana to the governments of American countries that “ to the next conference to be held in Havana copies of the respective trade mark laws of their countries could be brought by the gentlemen members, so that upon examination of same, to try and not draw up any resolution interfering with them. ” (See Report in Connection with the VI Pan American Conference to be held in Havana, 1927, p. 56.)

40 See Documentary Information Compiled by the Pan American Union relative to the Pan American Trade Mark Conference, Washington, 1928, pp. Sff. The Argentine delegate stated also that he was appointed by the committee rapporteur for the topic of trade marks, though he never had in his professional life a case dealing with trade marks. ibid., p. 7.

41 Ibid., pp. 13 jf.

42 Ibid., p. 19.