1 Stoll, Peter-Tobias, WIPO – World Intellectual Property Organization, in II United Nations – Law, Policies and Practice 1437 (Rüdiger Wolfrum ed., 1995).Google Scholar

2 Intellectual property is traditionally divided into two branches, industrial property on the one hand and copyright and related rights on the other hand. In contrast to industrial property rights, copyright and related rights do not need to be registered.Google Scholar

3 The German translation reads “internationaler Verwaltungsakt unter Prüfungsvorbehalt” borrowing from the term “Transnationalität unter Prüfungsvorbehalt” introduced by Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann, Verwaltungskooperation und Verwaltungskooperationsrecht in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, 31 Europarecht 270, 300–301 (1996).Google Scholar

4 Designated contracting parties are those states or intergovernmental organizations in which the international applicant wishes his trademark to be protected.Google Scholar

5 Frederick Abbott, Thomas Cottier & Francis Gurry, The International Intellectual Property System: Commentary and Materials, Part One 128–131 (1999); Introduction to Intellectual Property: Theory and Practice 183–186 (WIPO ed., 1997).Google Scholar

6 WIPO (note 5), 194.Google Scholar

7 UNTS, Vol. 828, 389.Google Scholar

8 O.J. 2003 L 296/22.Google Scholar

9 The main differences are that, under the Madrid Protocol, English is introduced as the second procedural language (instead of French only), international registration can be requested on the basis of a domestic trademark application (instead of domestic trademark registrations only) and contracting parties of the Madrid Protocol can extend the period for the refusal of protection from 12 to 18 months, which is of particular importance for states and intergovernmental organizations having comprehensive official examinations. See 27 International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law (IIC), 145, 146 (1996).Google Scholar

10 Madrid Protocol, Art. 14(1)(b).Google Scholar

11 Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community Trademark, O.J. (1994) L 11/1, Art. 2 and 111 et seq.; Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community Designs, O.J. 2002 L 3/1, Art. 2 and 62 et seq. See also http://oami.europa.eu/en/default.htm.Google Scholar

12 The other groups are intellectual property protection treaties and classification treaties. Intellectual property protection treaties, such as the Paris Convention for the Protection of Intellectual Property (Paris Convention) (UNTS, Vol. 828, 305), define internationally agreed basic standards of intellectual property protection in each country. Classification treaties, such as the Strasbourg Agreement Concerning the International Patent Classification (UNTS, Vol. 1160, 483), create classification systems that organize information concerning inventions, trademarks and industrial designs into indexed, manageable structures for easy retrieval.Google Scholar

13 On the principle of territoriality in trademark law, see Graeme B. Dinwoodie, Trademarks and Territory: Detaching Trademark Law from the Nation-State, 41 Houston Law Journal 886–973 (2004); Friedrich-Karl Beier, Territoriality of Trademark Law and International Trade, 1 International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law 48–72 (1970).Google Scholar

14 According to Art. 1(3) of the Madrid Agreement, the home country is defined as (a) any country, party to the Madrid Agreement, in which the holder of a trademark has a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment, (b) if he has no establishment in such a country, the country, party to the Madrid Agreement, in which he has his domicile; or (c) if he has neither an establishment nor a domicile in such a country, the country, party to the Madrid Agreement, of which he is a national. According to Art. 2(2) of the Madrid Protocol, the applicant or holder of a trademark may freely choose his office of origin on the basis of establishment, domicile or nationality.Google Scholar

15 Madrid Agreement, Art. 4(1); Madrid Protocol, Art. 4(1)(a).Google Scholar

16 Kwakwa, Edward, Institutional and Procedural Reform at the World Intellectual Property Organization, 3 International Organizations Law Review 143, 143 (2006). As a result, WIPO is a self-funding agency by and large, with almost 90 percent of WIPO's budget coming from fees paid by individuals, see WIPO Annual Report 2005, 26.Google Scholar

17 UNTS, Vol. 1160, 231.Google Scholar

18 WIPO, Record Year for International Patent Filings with Significant Growth from Northeast Asia, WIPO/PR/2007/476, 8 February 2007.Google Scholar

19 WIPO, Germany Holds its Lead in a Year that sees Record Number of International Trademark Filings, WIPO/PR/2007/480, 15 March 2007.Google Scholar

20 Assembly of the Madrid Union, Fee Reduction for Applicants from Least Developed Countries, MM/A/36/2, 11 July 2005. In the period 2003/2004, only two out of 53,345 international applications originated from least developed countries.Google Scholar

21 See (note 19).Google Scholar

22 The second WIPO-administered global protection system within which the EC participates is the Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs. The EC acceded to the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs, Geneva Act (O.J. 2006 L 386/30), on 1 January 2008.Google Scholar

23 Rather, it is an international filing system that has the same effect as national filings vis-à-vis designated contracting parties. The procedure under the Patent Cooperation Treaty enhances the chances of an international applicant having his patent registered, as the international filing is published by the International Bureau together with the international search report (i.e. a listing of published document citations that might affect the patentability of the invention). However, unlike an international registration, it does not replace domestic registrations. For more details on the procedure of the Patent Cooperation Treaty see WIPO (note 5), 395–405. Its impact on international administrative law has been discussed in Sabino Cassese, Global Administrative Law, Cases and Materials, available at: http://www.iilj.org/GAL/documents/GalCasebook.pdf, 37 et seq.; Sabino Cassese, Administrative Law without the State? The Challenge of Global Regulation, 37 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 663, 682 and 685 (2006).Google Scholar

24 Madrid Agreement, Art. 1.Google Scholar

25 José Alvarez, International Organizations as Law-Makers 28 (2005); Ignaz Seidl-Hohenveldern & Gerhard Loibl, Das Recht der Internationalen Organisationen Einschließlich der Supranationalen Gemeinschaften 20 (7th ed. 2000).Google Scholar

26 Wolfrum, Rüdiger, International Administrative Unions, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, http://mpepil.oup.com, para. 2 (Rüdiger Wolfrum ed., 2008); Christian Tietje, Internationalisiertes Verwaltungshandeln 129 (2002); Rideau, Joël, Les institutions internationales de la protection de la propriété intellectuelle, 72 Revue Générale de Droit International Public (RGDIP) 730, 731 (1968).Google Scholar

27 Agreement, Madrid, Art. 9^quater; Madrid Protocol, Art. 9^quater.Google Scholar

28 See http://www.boip.int/en/homepage.htm.Google Scholar

29 A mixed agreement, according to the substantive definition, is an international agreement that includes among its parties the EC, one, some or all of its member states and one or some other subjects of international law and that falls partly within the competence of the EC and partly within the competence of its member states (shared competences); see e.g. Schermers, Henry G., A Typology of Mixed Agreements, in Mixed Agreements 23, 25 (David O'Keeffe & Henry G. Schermers eds., 1983).Google Scholar

30 Karen Kaiser, Geistiges Eigentum und Gemeinschaftsrecht: Die Verteilung der Kompetenzen und ihr Einfluss auf die Durchsetzbarkeit der völkerrechtlichen Verträge 160 (2004).Google Scholar

31 Council Regulation 40/94, Recital 5.Google Scholar

32 Kaiser (note 30), at 199.Google Scholar

33 See e.g. Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (UNTS, Vol. 1867, 3), Art. IX(1).Google Scholar

34 Madrid Protocol, Art. 10(3)(a).Google Scholar

35 Madrid Agreement, Art. 10(2)(a)(v) and (ix).Google Scholar

36 The International Bureau is based in Geneva. WIPO's staff, drawn from more than 90 countries, includes experts in diverse areas of intellectual property law and practice, as well as specialists in public policy, economics, and administration. In 2005, WIPO's annual expenditure for its staff amounted to 189,928,000 Swiss Francs. See WIPO, Annual Report 2005, 26.Google Scholar

37 See http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/madrid/en/legal_texts/pdf/common_regulations.pdf.Google Scholar

38 See http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/madrid/en/legal_texts/pdf/admin_instructions.pdf.Google Scholar

39 The filing procedure under the Patent Cooperation Treaty has also been qualified as “mixed”, see Cassese, Global Administrative Law, Cases and Materials (note 23), 37.Google Scholar

40 Common Regulations, Rules 25 et seq. Google Scholar

41 Madrid Agreement, Art. 7(1); Madrid Protocol, Art. 7(1); Common Regulations, Rules 29 et seq.; An international registration of a trademark is effective for 20 years under the Madrid Agreement (Art. 6(1)) and for 10 years under the Madrid Protocol (Art. 6(1)). It may be renewed for further periods of 20 and 10 years respectively.Google Scholar

42 Madrid Agreement, Art. 1(2); Madrid Protocol, Art. 2(2).Google Scholar

43 Common Regulations, Rules 9(2)(a). There are three different official forms (MM1, MM2 and MM3) for the international application; all of them are available at: http://www.wipo.int/madrid/en/forms/.Google Scholar

44 Madrid Agreement, Art. 8(2); Madrid Protocol, Art. 8(2) and (7); see also Schedule of Fees Prescribed by the Common Regulations under the Madrid Agreement and the Madrid Protocol and the fee calculator, both available at: http://www.wipo.int/madrid/feecalc/FirstStep.Google Scholar

45 WIPO, Guide to the International Registration of Marks under the Madrid Agreement and the Madrid Protocol, para. B-22.01 (2004).Google Scholar

46 Common Regulations, Rule 32(1)(a)(i). See http://www.wipo.int/madrid/en/gazette/.Google Scholar

47 Common Regulations, Rules 14(1) and 24(8).Google Scholar

48 Madrid Agreement, Art. 5(1); Madrid Protocol, Art. 5(1).Google Scholar

49 WIPO (note 45), para. B-33.06. However, where the office of a designated contracting party finds no reason for refusing protection, it may issue a statement granting protection before the expiry of the relevant time limit. As with negative decisions on registration, this statement is recorded in the International Register, published in the WIPO Gazette.Google Scholar

50 Madrid Agreement, Art. 5(2); Madrid Protocol, Art. 5(2)(a) and (b); see also, supra, note 9.Google Scholar

51 Common Regulations, Rule 18(1)(a)(ii).Google Scholar

52 Common Regulations, Rule 17(5)(a).Google Scholar

53 Common Regulations, Rules 17(4) and (5)(c) and 32(1)(a)(iii).Google Scholar

54 Common Regulations, Rule 17(4) and (5)(b) and (c).Google Scholar

55 Common Regulations, Rule 9(2)(b).Google Scholar

56 Common Regulations, Rules 12 and 13.Google Scholar

57 Common Regulations, Rule 14(1).Google Scholar

58 Common Regulations, Rules 16 et seq. Google Scholar

59 Madrid Agreement, Art. 5(6); Madrid Protocol, Art. 5(6). See section B. V.Google Scholar

60 Common Regulations, Rule 25.Google Scholar

61 Common Regulations, Rules 24 et seq. Google Scholar

62 Common Regulations, Rule 10.Google Scholar

63 See on the principle of transparency section C. I. 2.Google Scholar

64 Common Regulations, Rule 32(1) and (2).Google Scholar

65 WIPO (note 45), para. A-07.01.Google Scholar

66 See Alvarez (note 25), at 217 et seq.; Jan Klabbers, An Introduction to International Institutional Law 197 et seq. (2004); Matthias Goldmann, in this issue.Google Scholar

67 See on the problems of comparative administrative law Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann and Stéphanie Dagron, Deutsches und französisches Verwaltungsrecht im Vergleich ihrer Ordnungsideen. Zur Geschlossenheit, Offenheit und gegenseitigen Lernfähigkeit von Rechtssystemen, 67 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht (ZaöRV) 395, 396 (2007).Google Scholar

68 Diana Zacharias, in this issue.Google Scholar

69 Clemens Feinäugle, in this issue.Google Scholar

70 For the comparable domestic registration of patents in France, see Foyer, Jean, L'opposabilité, sur le territoire français, d'un brevet européen dont la description est rédigée en une langue étrangère, 27 Recueil Dalloz 1919, 1921 (2007).Google Scholar

71 BGHZ 18, 81, 92 (German Federal Supreme Court); Reimar König, Die Rechtsnatur der Patenterteilung und ihre Bedeutung für die Auslegung von Patentansprüchen, 10 Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht (GRUR) 809, 810 (1999).Google Scholar

72 Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBl.) (German Federal Gazette) 2003, part I, at 102. An English translation of the German Law on Administrative Proceedings is reprinted in The Rule of Law in Public Administration: The German Approach 113–166 (Heinrich Siedentopf, Karl-Peter Sommermann & Christoph Hauschild eds., 2nd ed. 1993).Google Scholar

73 In the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries, this was even more conspicuous. Patents were granted to individuals by the sovereign in the form of “privileges”; see WIPO (note 5), 17.Google Scholar

74 Madrid Agreement, Art. 4(1); Madrid Protocol, Art. 4(1).Google Scholar

75 Mahendra Pal Singh, German Administrative Law in Common Law Perspective 67 (2001).Google Scholar

76 Foyer (note 70), 1921; König (note 71), 812.Google Scholar

77 König (note 71), 812.Google Scholar

78 Id. Google Scholar

79 Zacharias, in this issue; Feinäugle, in this issue.Google Scholar

80 See for the EC Art. 146 of the Council Regulation 40/94, for Germany section 112 of the Gesetz über den Schutz von Marken und sonstigen Kennzeichen (German Trademark Law; BGBl. 1994, part I, at 3082) and for France Art. R.717-1 of the Code de la propriété intellectuelle (French Intellectual Property Law; JO (3.7.1992) 8801). However, according to Art. R.717-2 of the French Intellectual Property Law, the international registration of certification trademarks (marques collectives de certification) can only be directly applied, as soon as regulations governing their use are submitted to the domestic trademark office in French; see also WIPO (note 45), para. B-15.04.Google Scholar

81 Günter Gall, Der Rechtsschutz des Patentanmelders auf dem Euro-PCT-Weg – Erster Teil, 7 Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht, Internationaler Teil (GRURInt) 417, 424 (1981); Alois Troller, Markenrecht und Landesgrenzen, 6 GRURInt 261, 263, footnote 8 (1967).Google Scholar

82 This is due to their right to declare that protection cannot be granted to the trademark in their territories, see section B. III. 1.Google Scholar

83 Madrid Agreement, Art. 6(3); Madrid Protocol, Art. 6(3). These provisions also apply when legal protection has later ceased as the result of an action begun before the expiration of the period of five years.Google Scholar

84 See for more details on the mutual recognition procedure Gernot Sydow, Verwaltungskooperation in der Europäischen Union: Zur horizontalen und vertikalen Zusammenarbeit der europäischen Verwaltungen am Beispiel des Produktzulassungsrechts 181 et seq. (2004).Google Scholar

85 Report from the Commission on the experience acquired as a result of the operation of the procedures for granting marketing authorisations for medicinal products laid down in Regulation (EEC) N 2309/93, in chapter III of directive 75/319/EEC and chapter IV of directive 81/851/EEC, COM(2001) 606 final, 5.Google Scholar

86 WIPO (note 45), para. B-37.03.Google Scholar

87 Singh (note 75), 80.Google Scholar

88 Id., 80 et seq.; Hartmut Maurer, Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht 280 (15th ed., 2004).Google Scholar

89 Singh (note 75), at 81. However, the administrative authority can abrogate the administrative act under certain conditions by withdrawal, by revocation or by reopening the administrative proceedings; see German Law on Administrative Proceedings, sections 48, 49 and 51.Google Scholar

90 Compare Madrid Protocol, Art. 5(6) that does not speak of invalidation of a trademark as such, but of invalidation “of the effects […] of an international registration” “in the territory of [a] Contracting Party”.Google Scholar

91 See section B. III. 1.Google Scholar

92 Cassese, Administrative Law without the State? (note 23), at 683 and 686.Google Scholar

93 See http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm. The UDRP was adopted by ICANN in 1999, but is based on recommendations made by WIPO in The Management of Internet Names and Addresses: Intellectual Property Issues, Final Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Process, 1999, focusing on the problems caused by the conflict between trademarks and domain names. See Matthias Hartwig, in this issue.Google Scholar

94 See http://arbiter.wipo.int.Google Scholar

95 WIPO General Assembly, Report, WO/GA/28/7, 1 October 2002, para. 114(ii) and 120.Google Scholar

96 On the concept and terminology of composite administrations, Armin von Bogdandy & Philipp Dann, International Composite Administrations, in this issue.Google Scholar

97 For the right to be heard, see Hague Agreement, Geneva Act, Art. 15(1). For the principle of transparency, inter alia, see Hague Agreement, Geneva Act, Art. 10(3), 18(1).Google Scholar

98 Benedict Kingsbury, Nico Krisch & Richard B. Stewart, The Emergence of Global Administrative Law, 68 Law & Contemporary Problems 15, 37 et seq. (2004-2005).Google Scholar

99 Singh (note 75), at 76 et seq. Google Scholar

100 Common Regulations, Rules 11(2), (3), (4)(a) and (6), 12(1) and 13(1). There are three kinds of irregularities: irregularities with respect to the classification of goods and services, irregularities with respect to the indication of goods and services, and other irregularities.Google Scholar

101 WIPO (note 45), para. B-22.02.Google Scholar

102 Id. at paras. B-23.01 and B-23.04, B-24.01 et seq. Examples for such irregularities are those with respect to the classification or indication of goods and services.Google Scholar

103 Id. at paras. B-23.11 and B-24.03.Google Scholar

104 Id. at paras. B-25.05 and B-25.07. An example for such irregularities would be that the international applicant has not paid any or not enough fees.Google Scholar

105 Harlow, Carol, Freedom of Information and Transparency as Administrative and Constitutional Rights, 2 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 285, 285 (1999).Google Scholar

106 For German administrative law, see Singh (note 73), at 79.Google Scholar

107 Common Regulations, Rule 14(1).Google Scholar

108 Common Regulations, Rule 17(4) and (5)(c).Google Scholar

109 Common Regulations, Rule 32(1)(a)(i) and (iii).Google Scholar

110 WIPO (note 45), paras. A-06.01 et seq. Google Scholar

111 Wolfrum (note 26), at para. 3.Google Scholar

112 Hague Agreement, Geneva Act, Art. 4(1); Patent Cooperation Treaty, Art. 9(1).Google Scholar

113 UNTS, Vol. 1065, 199.Google Scholar

114 European Patent Convention, Art. 106.Google Scholar

115 Okediji, Ruth L., The International Relations of Intellectual Property: Narratives of Developing Country Participation in the Global Intellectual Property System, 7 Singapore Journal of International & Comparative Law 315–385 (2003).Google Scholar

116 WIPO General Assembly, Proposal by Argentina and Brazil for the Establishment of a Development Agenda for WIPO, WO/GA/31/11, 27 August 2004.Google Scholar

117 UNTS, Vol. 1869, 299.Google Scholar

118 Annette, Kur, TRIPs and Trademark Law, in From GATT to TRIPs: The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 93, 116 (Friedrich-Karl Beier & Gerhard Schricker eds., 1996).Google Scholar

119 Benelux Economic Union the Uniform Benelux Law on Marks (UNTS, Vol. 704, 301, 312); for the EC Art. 95 and 308 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (O.J. 2006 C 231/37) and Council Regulation 40/94.Google Scholar