¹ The non-governmental organization (NGO) receives certain economic resources from the company, and, in return, the latter is allowed to associate its image with that of the NGO, through the use of its symbol or emblem. Examples include sponsorships of the Canon company regarding different projects of the national Red Cross societies of Austria (Connecting People), Belgium (Challenge of Youth), Denmark (Study Cafes), Finland (Emergency Shelters for Young People), France (Holidays for Vulnerable Children), Germany (Where Is My Home?), Italy (Casa di Teddy), The Netherlands (Holidays for Young People with Disabilities), Spain (World AIDS Day Campaign), Sweden (Responsible Person), Switzerland (Fund for Youth), and the United Kingdom (Positive Images).

² The NGO obtains the one-time support of the company to carry out a certain activity, which is usually related to the NGO’s goals, and, in return, the image of the patron is associated with that of the NGO. Examples include collaboration in 1987 between the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Evian water company in which the latter donated two francs to the former each time a consumer sent in thirty labels from the brand’s products, or the collaboration between Soltel Information Technology Solutions and the Spanish Red Cross Society.

³ The NGO receives a contribution from the company, which will normally have some type of publicity that will benefit the image of the company’s business brand.

⁴ The NGO exhibits, in exchange for economic resources, the brand image of the company in all media in which it advertises an event that it is organizing. For example, Flightcare has sponsored, at the Manises Airport in Valencia, Spain, an initiative organized by the Dutch Red Cross pursuant to which, thanks to support from the KLM Company, seventy chronically ill and disabled people, including twenty in wheelchairs, were able to spend a special day in Valencia.

⁵ The company gives the NGO a series of products, distribution channels, premises, equipment, and so on, which is advertised so that the company’s corporate brand again enjoys a benefit. For example, in Spain, the company Alcampo provides space in the entrances to its commercial centres so that the Red Cross Territorial Offices can sell lottery tickets.

⁶ For example, the possibility of deductions from taxable revenue for donations made to NGOs.

⁷ Such marketing influences the targets of the campaigns and determines, to a large extent and in many cases, the credibility of the company and the quality of the products or services it promotes or develops. See e.g. the British Red Cross’s description of sponsorship opportunities at Red Cross, online: <www.redcross.org.uk/en/Get-involved/Corporate-support/Ways-of-working-with-us/Working-together-in-business/Sponsorship>: “Sponsoring a British Red Cross event will help your company build positive brand awareness, engage with a mass audience and drive customer and employee loyalty. We have a wealth of experience in developing integrated and bespoke sponsorship packages. From our regional Red Shoe Walks to our national youth dance event ‘Dance: Make Your Move’, we can offer sponsorship opportunities to suit your objectives. By partnering with us your company will align itself with one of the UK’s most recognised and trusted brands. Our award-winning PR, marketing and events teams will work with your company to create a successful event. We can deliver bespoke sponsorship packages that meet your marketing objectives and values, while raising money for people in crisis in the UK and overseas.”

⁸ These limitations may include the need to know, prior collaboration with companies, and whether these companies meet certain requirements including respect for human rights, adhering to the International Labour Organization’s conventions, and respect for the environment and public health.

⁹ The elaboration of this code of conduct has as its origin collaborations that some NGOs had established with third parties in which the image inherent in the emblem was used in advertising campaigns whose object or product was inconsistent with the principles of the former, thereby degrading the NGO’s public image. Many critical articles arose at that time. See e.g. David Álvarez Rivas, “El gancho commercial de la solidaridad,” online: <www.fuhem.es/media/cdv/file/biblioteca/Educaci%C3%B3n/El%20gancho%20comercial%20de%20la%20solidaridad.pdf>.

¹⁰ Coordinadora de ONG para el Desarrollo-España, Código de conducta de las ONG de Desarrollo, 28 March 1998, online: < https://coordinadoraongd.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Codigo_Conducta.pdf>.

¹¹ “Emblem” is used in the singular here for ease of reference, whereas, in reality, the ICRC is represented by several emblems. See note 13 below.

¹² Regarding the origins and structure of the ICRC, see Borel, Eugène, “L’Organisation internationale de la Croix-Rouge” (1923) 1 Rec des Cours 573.Google Scholar

¹³ At the first session of the International Committee, on 17 February 1853, the need arose to create a symbol that would unify the services provided by the so-called Relief Societies. But this intention did not materialize until ten years later. The reasons for adopting the symbol of a red cross on a white background are not reflected in the proceedings of the conference, and, therefore, the various explanations that have been put forward do not go beyond mere conjecture. It is true that selection of that symbol brought as a consequence much controversy regarding the symbolism of the cross and its identification with religious issues. This is the reason why later, for the purposes of conciliation at the Diplomatic Conference of 1929 and following several representations made by countries of the Middle East, the emblems of the Red Crescent and the Red Lion and Sun were also admitted and recognized. Since the latter can only be used by the countries that used them at the time of their recognition, it has not been used since 1980 and has thus fallen into disuse. In 2005, an additional emblem was adopted by a Diplomatic Conference of States Parties to the Geneva Conventions with the adoption of Additional Protocol III to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem, 8 December 2005, 2404 UNTS 261 (entered into force 14 January 2007) [Additional Protocol III]. Additional Protocol III establishes a new distinctive emblem, the Red Crystal, with the same legal recognition and protection from misuse that the Red Cross, the Red Crescent, and the Red Lion and Sun enjoy under the Geneva Conventions framework. See François Bugnion, “L’emblème de la croix rouge et celui du croissant rouge” (1989) 779 RICR 424 at 430–41; François Bugnion, Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Crystal (Geneva: ICRC, 2007) [Bugnion, Red Cross]; Maurice Dunant, “Les origines du drapeau et du brassard de la Croix-Rouge” (1922) 30:1 La Croix-Rouge Suisse 2; Jean S Pictet, “Le signe de la croix rouge” (1949) 31:363 RICR 167; Jean S Pictet, “La Croix-Rouge et les conventions de Genève” (1950) 76 Rec des Cours 1 at 63 [Pictet, “La Croix-Rouge”]; Percival Frutiger, “L’origine du signe de la croix rouge” (1954) 36:426 RICR 456; Boissier, Pierre, Histoire du Comité international de la Croix-Rouge: De Solférino à Tsoushima (Paris: Plon, 1963) at 105–06Google Scholar.

¹⁴ The emblem was created as a distinctive sign of health services linked at the present time to the idea of impartial humanitarian assistance that is provided to all those human beings who suffer for different reasons, such as war, natural disasters, and so on.

¹⁵ The ICRC was founded in Geneva in 1863 and was endorsed by the Geneva Conventions and by the International Conferences of the Red Cross. It is an independent humanitarian institution with its own statute that recruits its members, by cooptation, from among Swiss citizens.

¹⁶ The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies is an independent humanitarian organization that is not governmental, political, cultural, or confessional, is endowed with its own legal personality, and acts in accordance with its own statutes. See International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, online: <www.ifrc.org/en/who-we-are/the-movement/ifrc/>.

¹⁷ See Ruegger, Paul, “L’Organisation de la Croix-Rouge internationale envisagée sous ses aspects juridiques” (1953) 82 Rec des Cours 373 Google Scholar at 386, on the legal reasoning behind the organic structure of the International Movement of the Red Cross.

¹⁸ See, in the preamble to the Statutes and Regulations of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, adopted by the twenty-fifth International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in Geneva in October 1986 and amended by the twenty-sixth International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in Geneva in December 1995 (online: <www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/statutes-en-a5.pdf>), the definition of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement (International Movement) as “a worldwide humanitarian movement, whose mission is to prevent and alleviate human suffering wherever it may be found, to protect life and health and ensure respect for the human being, in particular in times of armed conflict and other emergencies, to work for the prevention of disease and for the promotion of health and social welfare, to encourage voluntary service and a constant readiness to give help by the members of the Movement, and a universal sense of solidarity towards all those in need of its protection and assistance.”

¹⁹ On the relationship between the ICRC and national societies, see Pictet, “La Croix-Rouge,” supra note 13 at 15.

²⁰ Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, 20 March 1883, 828 UNTS 305 (entered into force 7 July 1884) [Paris Convention].

²¹ See e.g. Lobato, Manuel, Comentario a la Ley 17/2001 de marcas, 2nd ed (Madrid: Civitas, 2007) at 269 Google Scholar. This author states that among the symbols and emblems protected by art 5(1) (j) of the Spanish Trademark Law 17/2001, application of Article 6ter of the Paris Convention, supra note 20, would include the emblem of the ICRC, arguing that “such protection has deep roots in our system of brands.” The same author supports his thesis with reference to Judgment no 950/1997 (18 October 1997) (Superior Court of Justice of Madrid [TSJ Madrid]), in which the court considered an administrative appeal filed by the Spanish Red Cross (SRC) against a resolution of the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (OEPM) that rejected the SRC’s objection to a registration application. The SRC’s objection was based on the possibility of appropriation of the SRC’s emblem and sought revocation, therefore, of the trademark granted by the OEPM. While I fully agree with the reasoning in this judgment, the Court does not say at any time that resolution of the case was linked to the application of the predecessor to Article 5(1)(j) of the current Trademark Law. Therefore, one cannot interpret this decision as presupposing the inclusion of the emblem of the ICRC within the scope of protection of Article 6ter of the Paris Convention or, therefore, art 5(1)(j) of Trademark Law 17/2001. In addition, we would say that this decision rightly revoked the trademark, not in application of the aforementioned rules but, rather, in accordance with the predecessor to art 5(1)(g) of Trademark Law 17/2001, which is not related to the prohibition of registration of protected symbols or emblems in application of Article 6ter of the Paris Convention but, rather, of marks whose use could mislead the public.

²² In this connection, there are several Spanish decisions that “indirectly” admit, in cases in which the emblem sought to be protected is that of the ICRC, the possibility that said emblem enters within the material scope of application of Article 6ter of the Paris Convention. See e.g. Judgment no 5638/2002 (12 April 2005) (Supreme Court of Spain) [Judgment no 5638/2002], Judgment no 871/1998 (23 October 1998) (TSJ Madrid); Judgment no 3105/1997 (5 April 2001) (TSJ Madrid).

²³ With regard to this specific issue, see Bodenhausen, GHC, Guide d’application de la Convention de Paris pour la protection de la propriété industrielle (Geneva: Bureaux internationaux réunis pour la protection de la propriété intellectuelle, 1969) at 100Google Scholar.

²⁴ Regulations on the Use of the Emblem of the Red Cross or the Red Crescent by the National Societies, adopted by the twentieth International Conference (Vienna, 1965) and revised by the Council of Delegates (Budapest, 1991), (1992) 32:289 Intl Rev Red Cross 339 (entered into force 31 July 1992) [Regulations].

²⁵ Model Law Concerning the Use and Protection of the Emblem of the Red Cross, Red Crescent and Red Crystal, online: ICRC <www.icrc.org/en/document/national-legislation-use-and-protection-emblem-model-law> [Model Law].

²⁶ 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 31 (entered into force 21 October 1950) [Geneva Convention I].

²⁷ 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 85 (entered into force 21 October 1950).

²⁸ 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287 (entered into force 21 October 1950) [Geneva Convention IV].

²⁹ Regarding the Geneva Conventions, see generally Pictet, “La Croix-Rouge,” supra note 13 at 27–48.

³⁰ Geneva Convention I, supra note 26, art 54: “The High Contracting Parties shall, if their legislation is not already adequate, take measures necessary for the prevention and repression, at all times, of the abuses referred to under Article 53.”

³¹ See note 13 above and text accompanying notes 36–39 below.

³² Geneva Convention IV, supra note 28, arts 21–22.

³³ Resolution 5 of the Resolutions of the Diplomatic Conference, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 21.

³⁴ Bouvier, Antoine, “Aspects particuliers de l’utilisation de l’emblème de la Croix Rouge ou du Croissant Rouge” (1989) 71:779 RICR 456 at 466Google Scholar: “En règle générale, l’emblème utilisé à titre indicatif devra donc être de petites dimensions, en temps de paix comme en temps de guerre.”

³⁵ Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3, art 38 (entered into force 7 December 1978). See generally, regarding the Additional Protocols, Sandoz, Yves, Swinarski, Christophe & Zimmermann, Bruno, eds, Commentaire des Protocoles additionnels du 8 juin 1977 aux Conventions de Genève du 12 août 1949 (Geneva: Comité international de la Croix-Rouge (CICR), 1986).Google Scholar

³⁶ See Bugnion, Red Cross, supra note 13 ; Jean-François Quéguiner, “Commentary on the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem (Protocol III)” (2007) 89:865 Intl Rev Red Cross 175.

³⁷ Additional Protocol III, supra note 13, art 2(3): “The conditions for use of and respect for the third Protocol emblem are identical to those for the distinctive emblems established by the Geneva Conventions and, where applicable, the 1977 Additional Protocols.” See further Quéguiner, supra note 36 at 188–89.

³⁸ Annex to Resolution 1, International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, Switzerland, 20–21 June 2006.

³⁹ Ibid.

⁴⁰ See “Revision of the Regulations for the Use of the Emblem of the Red Cross, the Red Crescent and the Red Lion and Sun by the National Societies,” Doc CII/3/1 (July 1986). This revision to the Regulations was provisionally approved by the Council of Delegates (Resolution 6) at its meeting on 27 November 1987 in Rio de Janeiro. See also the Minutes of the Manila Conference (November 1981), online: <https://library.icrc.org/library/docs/DIGITAL/CI_1981_RAPPORT_SPA.pdf> and the draft revision of the Regulations (at 165).

⁴¹ Regulations, supra note 24.

⁴² Pierre Gaillard, Proceedings of the Beirut Congress (Geneva: ICRC 1971) at 12.

⁴³ In the clarifications to section 3 of the Regulations — in particular, to subparagraphs (a) and (b) of art 23(3) — the need is stressed for national societies to take care in all cases of the possibility that the public may confuse the national society with the collaborating company or the entity that has been authorized to use the emblem. In this sense, the national society is obliged to specify what kind of collaboration or use has been established contractually with the commercial company, avoiding, in any case, the possibility that the emblem is related to the quality of the products. Likewise, the national society must examine the proportions of the emblem with respect to those of the brand of the company with which it collaborates or which it has authorized to use the emblem.

⁴⁴ In the case of art 23(3)(c), the need for the collaborations or authorizations to be one-time and not perpetually binding on the national society and company is specified. Indeed, quite the opposite is required: this type of collaboration or authorization must be punctual. A period of three years is established as their maximum duration, and they are spatially limited to the territory of the state whose national society has established the collaborative relationship or authorized the use. Agreements with other national societies, in whose state the same campaign could be developed in parallel, is an exception to this last requirement.

⁴⁵ The clarification that is made to this requirement in art 23(3)(d) is interesting, in that it prohibits national societies from establishing collaborations or granting authorizations to companies that pursue activities such as the manufacturing of weapons or products that are harmful to health, the environment, and so on.

⁴⁶ Art 23(3)(e) establishes the possibility of cancelling the collaboration or authorization contract due to circumstances that might occur and which were unknown at the time of concluding the contract.

⁴⁷ Art 23(3)(f) establishes the need for the national society to obtain advantages and benefits from the contractual relationship, although in no case do these requirements imply that the organization must create a link of dependency with the commercial company.

⁴⁸ The contract must be written and authorized by the competent bodies of the corresponding national society.

⁴⁹ Art 23(3)(b): “[T]he National Society must retain control over the entire campaign, in particular the choice of articles on which the company’s trademark, logo or name is displayed and the placement, form and size of such markings.”

⁵⁰ Model Law, supra note 25.

⁵¹ Jean-Philippe Lavoyer, “Législation nationale concernant l’utilisation et la protection de l’emblème de la croix rouge ou du croissant rouge” (1996) 78:820 RICR 522 at 524: “Le but de la loi-type est de mettre à disposition des États un outil de travail facilement compréhensible qui indique les sujets devant être traités.”

⁵² For example, as already highlighted, Switzerland has a specific law for the protection of this emblem due, in large part, to the fact that the seat of the ICRC is located in this state: Loi fédérale concernant la protection de l’emblème et du nom de la Croix-Rouge, 25 March 1954, RO 1954 1327, online: <www.admin.ch/opc/fr/classified-compilation/19540047/index.html#:~:text=L'embl%C3%A8me%20de%20la%20croix,a.)> [Loi suisse].

⁵³ See e.g. Trademarks Act, RSC 1985, c T-13, s 9(1)(f) [Canadian Trademarks Act]; Trademark Act, Act no 121 of 1959, art 4(1)(iv), online: <www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail/?ft=2&re=02&dn=1&yo=trademark+act&x=58&y=10&ia=03&ja=04&ph=&ky=&page=1> [Japanese Trademark Act].

⁵⁴ In the case of the Regulations of the Spanish Red Cross, for example, Article 3.4 establishes that “the emblem used for indicative purposes will be accompanied by the legend ‘Spanish Red Cross’, without any drawing, emblem or inscription appearing on the red cross itself, which, otherwise, will always be the dominant element of the emblem” and emphasizes that “the Committees of Autonomous Communities that have another official language besides Castilian, will be able to use it in the denomination and labels of the Institution, always next to that of “Spanish Red Cross,” online: <www.cruzroja.es/mpe/docs/Reglamento_General_Organico_de_Cruz_Roja_Espanola.pdf>.

⁵⁵ Ibid, art 3(7).

⁵⁶ See e.g. in Canada, Canadian Trademarks Act, supra note 53, s 9(1)(f)-(g); in Japan, Japanese Trademark Act, supra note 53, art 4(1)(iv); in Uruguay, Law 17.011, art 4.3, online: <https://legislativo.parlamento.gub.uy/temporales/leytemp9126941.htm>.

⁵⁷ See, here, in Switzerland, Loi suisse, supra note 52; in Colombia, Law 875 of 2004, regulating the use of the emblem of the Red Cross and Red Crescent and other emblems protected by the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols; in Guinea, Law 95/019/CTRN on the use and protection of the emblem of the Red Cross; Nicaragua, Law no 418 of 26 February 2002 on protection and use of the name and emblem of the Red Cross; in Panama, Law no 32 of 4 July 2001, establishing provisions for the protection and use of the emblem of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent; in Paraguay, Law no 2365 of 29 April 2004, amending Law no 993 of 6 August 1928, and prohibiting use of the name, badges, and emblems of the Red Cross; in El Salvador, Law of Protection of the Emblem of the Red Cross (26 January 1994); and in Venezuela, Law of Protection of the Name and Emblem of the Red Cross (10 June 1965).

⁵⁸ On the protective use of the emblem in different cases, see Bouvier, supra note 34 at 466ff.

⁵⁹ Among these circumstances, we can mention that the authority and rights that the national societies have over the use of the emblem in times of peace inevitably vary when compared to times in which there are disturbances and armed conflicts.

⁶⁰ ICRC, Study on the Use of the Emblems: Operational and Commercial and Other Non-Operational Issues (Geneva: ICRC, 2011) at 149–60.

⁶¹ Baptiste Rolle & Edith Lafontaine, “The Emblem That Cried Wolf: ICRC Study on the Use of the Emblems” (2009) 91:876 Intl Rev Red Cross 759 at 771–78; ICRC, supra note 60 at 87–148.

⁶² This practice is the usual one in the contracts carried out by the Spanish Red Cross according to the information obtained by the author from the legal department of the national society of this NGO.

⁶³ As an example of this model of use, see Judgment no 285/2000 (2 June 2000) (Provincial Court of Jaén, Spain), in which the Spanish Red Cross had authorized the use of its emblem by the owner of a medical recognition centre in exchange for the latter taking over the rental expenses of the premises where the organization had its headquarters.

⁶⁴ Although it is not usual, some national societies have registered their emblem in certain categories of brands for use in their own programs or those developed jointly with third parties. For example, the national societies of Spain (trademark: Cruz Roja Española 150 Aniversario), France (trademark: Chez Henry par la Croix-Rouge française), or Canada (trademarks: Help Canadian Red Cross/Croix Rouge canadienne or Red Cross/Croix-Rouge Swim Kids/Natation Junior).

⁶⁵ There are many NGOs that register their symbol or emblem as a trademark in states where they carry out their activities. For example, in Spain, several NGOs have done so: Doctors of the World, Save the Children, SOS Children’s Villages, ANESVAD (A Nuestros Enfermos Servimos Viendo A Dios), MPDL (Movimiento por la Paz), Oxfam Intermón, Amnesty International, and COE (Comité olímpico español). This practice is similar to other countries. In France, for example, there is Save the Children, Oxfam, Greenpeace, or Doctors of the World and, in the United Kingdom, there is Save the Children or Greenpeace.

⁶⁶ In some specific cases, an international organization (IO) has registered its emblem as a trademark for the development of a specific activity. For example, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has registered its emblem in Spain, France, and Belgium.

⁶⁷ In Spain, Save the Children has registered its emblem as a national, European Union (EU), and international trademark; MPDL as a national and EU trademark; and Oxfam Intermón as a national and EU trademark. In France, Oxfam has registered its emblem as a EU and international trademark; Save the Children as a national, EU, and international trademark; and Doctors of the World as a national and EU trademark. In the United Kingdom, Save the Children is registered as a national and international trademark and Oxfam as a national and EU trademark.

⁶⁸ See Order SCB/801/2019 of 11 July 2019, by Which the Consolidated Text of the Statutes of the Spanish Red Cross Is Published, online: <www.boe.es/eli/es/o/2019/07/11/scb801/dof/spa/pdf>.

⁶⁹ The prohibition of this type of use, when it comes to an IO, comes from the application of Article 6ter(1) of the Paris Convention, supra note 20, but, as already explained, this rule does not apply when dealing with the emblem of the ICRC since it has its own protection due to application of the Geneva Conventions.

⁷⁰ In this sense and for Spain, see Judgment no 950/1997, supra note 21.

⁷¹ In this sense and for Spain, see Judgment no 5638/2002, supra note 22.

⁷² In this sense, see the decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain in Judgment no 4801/2000 (4 May 2004); Judgment no 5239/2001 (18 October 2004); Judgment no 5638/2002 (12 April 2005); and of the TSJ Madrid in Judgment no 2114/1994 (18 October 1997); Judgment no 871/1998 (23 October 1998); Judgment no 3105/1997 (5 April 2001), in all of which the ICRC requested cancellation of the trademarks.

⁷³ See Judgment no 5638/2002, supra note 22 at 4 [author’s translation]: “In the present case, as can be deduced from a mere visual comparison of the intended trademark and the Red Cross emblem, the position cannot be reached, which the appellant pleads, that the Red Cross emblem is being used; it is true that within the intended graphic design, a cross devoid of color is inserted, but it does not respond to the characteristics of the distinctive emblem of the Red Cross, nor can it be said to be the predominant design. That cross could have been, as we said in the judgment whose reasoning we follow in essence, of any other color, but in no way does it allow us to attribute to the whole any pretension of imitation of or approach to the Red Cross emblem; and such attempt or intent to imitate the emblem of the Red Cross is essential.”

⁷⁴ See ibid at 4 [author’s translation]: “[B]etween the intended trademark and the opposing emblem considered as a whole, sufficient disparities are appreciated that allow their differentiation and non-association of the requested trademark and the Red Cross badge, which allows … the conclusion that the requested trademark does not reproduce the Red Cross emblem.”

⁷⁵ Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Annex 1C to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, 15 April 1994, 1869 UNTS 299 (entered into force 1 January 1995).

⁷⁶ Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks (as amended on September 28, 1979), 27 September 1979, online: <https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/treaties/textdetails/12599> (entered into force 22 October 1983 ); Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks (as amended on November 12, 2007), 11 November 2007, online: <https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/treaties/textdetails/12603> (entered into force 31 August 2008 ).

⁷⁷ Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks (as amended on September 28, 1979), 27 September 1979, online: <https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/treaties/textdetails/12617> (entered into force 5 September 1982).

⁷⁸ Trademark Law Treaty, 27 October 1994, online: <https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/treaties/textdetails/12678> (entered into force 31 July 1996).

⁷⁹ Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union Trade Mark, [2017] OJ L154/1.