Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T13:10:08.266Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The International Registration of Non-traditional Trademarks: Compliance with the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris Convention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2016

QIAN ZHAN
QIAN ZHAN*
Affiliation:
East China Normal University Law School, Shanghai, China
*
*Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Contemporary international trademark law is subject to a dynamic process. As communication and marketing strategies steadily evolve, enterprises seek to develop non-traditional signs as trademarks in international trade. Since non-traditional trademarks have received broad protection among WTO Members, the international registration of non-traditional trademarks has raised certain questions. This article focuses on issues of the registration of non-traditional trademarks from an international perspective. With a brief introduction to the new category of trademarks, Section 2 discusses whether non-traditional signs can constitute trademarks by analyzing the trademark definition that is stipulated in Article 15.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and introduces the current status of the legal protection afforded to non-traditional trademarks under the domestic trademark legislations in WTO Member states. Section 3 presents an in-depth analysis of Article 6quinquies of the Paris Convention and aims to address the significance of Article 6quinquies with regard to the international registration of non-traditional trademarks by comparing the essential difference between the two modes of international registration of trademarks. The conclusion provides strategical suggestions and practical guidance for both trademark applicants and competent authorities of WTO Members.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , January 2017 , pp. 111 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © Qian Zhan 2016 

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 J. Thomas McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition, Clark Boardman Callaghan, c2004, at § 2:3.

2 Roth, Melissa E., ‘Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed, Something Blue: A New Tradition in Nontraditional Trademark Registrations’, 1 Cardozo Law Review (2005) 457 Google Scholar, at 495.

3 WIPO SCT/16/2 Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications, para. 3, ‘New Types of Marks’, http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/sct/en/comments/pdf/sct17/se_1.pdf (accessed 10 July 2006).

4 Beier, Friedrich-Karl and Reimer, Arnold, ‘Preparatory Study for the Establishment of a Uniform International Trademark Definition’, 45 Trademark Reporter (1955) 1266 Google Scholar, at 1268.

5 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Annex 1C of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, signed in Marrakesh, Morocco on 15 April1994.

6 Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Convention), signed on 20 March 1883, as revised in Brussels on 14 December 1900, in Washington, DC on 2 June 1911, in The Hague on 6 November 1925, in London on 2 June 1934, in Lisbon on 31 October 1958, and in Stockholm on 14 July 1967, and as amended on 28 September 1979.

7 Bravo, Gustavo, ‘From Paris Convention to TRIPS: A Brief History’, 12 Journal of Contemporary Legal Issue (2001–2002) 445 Google Scholar, at 449. See also Ellwood, L. A., ‘The Industrial Property Convention and the “Telle Quelle” Clause’, 46 Trademark Reporter (1956) 36 Google Scholar, at 38.

8 Kur, Annette, ‘TRIPS and Trademark Law’, in Beier, Friedrich-Karl and Schricker, Gerhard (eds.), From GATT to TRIPs: The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights – TRIPs and Design Protection (Max Planck Institute, Munich, 1996) 93Google Scholar, at 98.

9 Friedrich-Karl Beier and Arnold Reimer, supra note 4, at 1270.

10 Gervais, Daniel, The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis (Sweet & Maxwell, 1997)Google Scholar, at 105.

11 Keon, Jim, ‘Intellectual Property Rules for Trademarks and Geographical Indications: Important Parts of the New World Trade Order’, in Correa, Carlos M. and Yusuf, Abdulqawi A. (eds.), Intellectual Property and International Trade: The TRIPS Agreement (Kluwer Law International, The Hague, 2008)Google Scholar, at Part 5.

12 See Article 15.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.

13 Stoll, Peter-Tobias, Busche, Jan, and Arend, Karin, Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, 2009)Google Scholar, at 307.

14 Carvalho, Nuno Pires de, The TRIPS Regime of Trademarks and Designs (Kluwer Law, 2011)Google Scholar, at 284.

15 Schechter, F., ‘The Rational Basis of Trademark Protection’, 40 Harvard Law Review (1927) 813 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 834.

16 Bereskin, Daniel R., ‘A Comparison of the Trademark Provisions of NAFTA and TRIPS’, 83 Trademark Reporter (1993) 1 Google Scholar, at 5.

17 US – Section 211 Appropriations Act, WT/DS176/AB/R, para.154.

18 Ramsey, Lisa P., ‘Free Speech and International Obligations to Protect Trademarks’, 35 Yale Journal of International Law (2010) 405 Google Scholar, at 416.

19 WIPO SCT/16/2, supra note 3, para.57.

20 Friedrich-Karl Beier and Arnold Reimer, supra note 4, at 1271.

21 Except for certain Members that have not enacted any trademark laws so far, for example, Myanmar, the Maldives, and the Solomon Islands.

22 Nuno Pires de Carvalho, supra note 14, at 295.

23 Schimidt-Szalewski, Joanna. ‘The International Protection of Trademarks after the TRIPS Agreement’, 9 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law (1998) 189 Google Scholar, at 207.

24 Daniel Gervais, supra note 10, at 105.

25 See Article 1.1 of TRIPS Agreement.

26 Daniel Gervais, supra note 10, at 105.

27 Jim Keon, supra note 11, at Part 5.

28 Friedrich-Karl Beier and Arnold Reimer, supra note 4, at 1273.

29 Nuno Pires de Carvalho, supra note 14, at 296.

30 Melissa E. Roth, supra note 2, at 495.

31 US – Section 211 Appropriations Act, WT/DS176/AB/R, para.154.

32 Drescher, Thomas D., ‘Nature and Scope of Trademark Provision under TRIPS and Pan-American Conventions’, 87 Trademark Reporter (1997) 319 Google Scholar, at 321.

33 Peter-Tobias Stoll, supra note 13, at 308.

34 Meltzer, Eleanor, ‘TRIPS and Trademarks, or GATT Got Your Tongue?’, 83 Trademark Reporter (1993) 18 Google Scholar, at 37.

35 Blakeney, Michael, ‘The Impact of the TRIPS Agreement in the Asia Pacific Region’, 10 European Intellectual Property Review (1996) 548 Google Scholar.

36 Joanna Schimidt-Szalewski, supra note 23, at 198.

37 Thomas D. Drescher, supra note 32, at 321.

38 Leaffer, Marshall A.. ‘The New World of International Trademark Law’, 2 Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review (1998) 1 Google Scholar.

39 Chao, James C., ‘Recent Trends in Asian Trademark Law-Changes and Challenges’, 95 Trademark Reporter (2005) 883 Google Scholar, at 885.

40 WIPO SCT/16/2, supra note 3, para.4.

41 Angola, Bangladesh, Egypt, Haiti, Indonesia, Jordan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Namibia, Pakistan, Ukraine, and Yemen.

42 See Article 2 of Argentina Law on Trademarks and Designations.

43 Albania, Armenia, Australian, Bahrain, Burundi, Canada, Croatia, Cuba, European Union, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Hong Kong, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Madagascar, Mongolia, Namibia, New Zealand, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Singapore, South Africa, Suriname, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen.

44 Angola, Argentina, Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cameron, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Columbia, Congo, Costa Rica, Dominican, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Estonia, Gabon, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Mali, Mauritania, Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, Nicaragua, Niger, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Senegal, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Uruguay, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

45 Nuno Pires de Carvalho, supra note 14, at 297. For example, New Zealand, Norway, Australia, Hong Kong, Canada and Japan.

46 Nuno Pires de Carvalho, supra note 14, at 297.

47 See Article 2 of Argentina Law on Trademarks and Designations. See also Article 124 of Brazil Industrial Property Law; Article 7 of Costa Rica Law No. 7978 on Trademarks and other Distinctive Signs; Article 73 of Dominican Industrial Property Law; Article 133 of Djibouti Industrial Property Law; Section 9 of Estonia Trademarks Act; Section 8 of El Salvador Law on Trademarks and other Distinctive Signs; Article 90 of Mexico Industrial Property Law; Article 119 of Mozambique Industrial Property Code; Article 91 of Panama Industrial Property Law; Article 2 of Paraguay Trademark Law; Section 135 of Andean Community Decision No. 486 Establishing the Common Industrial Property Regime; Article 123.1 of Philippines Intellectual Property Code; Article 223.1 of Portugal Industrial Property Code; Section 20 of Swaziland Trademarks Act, Article 4 of Uruguay Trademark Law.

48 Case C-104/01 Libertel Groep v. Benelux–Merkenbureau [2003].

49 Philmac Pty Ltd v. The Registrar of Trademarks (2002) 56 IPR 452.

50 Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 514 US. 159, 34 USPQ.2d 1161. See Trademark Manual of Examination Procedures §1202.05(a).

51 Ty Nant Spring Water Ltd's Trademark Application [2000] R.P.C. 55.

52 Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japna, Mexico, Portugal, United Kingdom, Turkey, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Tunisia.

53 Armenia, Burundi, Djibouti, France, Hungary, Korea, Morocco, Oman, Panama, Romania, Taiwan, Tanzania, Tunisia, and Vietnam.

54 Armenia, Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, Portugal, Turkey, and Tunisia.

55 See Article 2.1 of Korean Trademark Act and Article 18 of Taiwan Trademark Act.

56 Angola, Antigua and Bermuda, Barbados, Benin, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameron, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iceland, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Niger, Philippines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga, Vietnam.

57 Armenia, Australian, Bahrain, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Canada, Chile, China, Columbia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Djibouti, Ecuador, El Salvador, European Union, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Macau, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Oman, Panama, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Spain, Taiwan, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, Vanuatu.

58 See WIPO/STrad/INF/1 Rev.1, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Mauritius, Portugal, and Tunisia.

59 United States, United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Argentina, Austria, Czech Republic, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Lithuania, Mauritius, Russia Federation, Ukraine, and Singapore.

60 Armenia, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Japan, Madagascar, Malta, Morocco, Pakistan, Panama, Portugal, Romania, Moldova, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Slovakia, Spain, Siri Lanka, and Thailand.

61 Australian, Bahrain, Burundi, Canada, Andean Community (Bolivia, Chile, Columbia, Ecuador, Peru), El Salvador, Hong Kong, Korea, Mongolia, Morocco, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Oman, Cuba, Panama, Qatar, Samoa, Tanzania, Uganda, and Vanuatu.

62 Burundi, Canada, New Zealand, Oman, Panama and Samoa.

63 Application No. 140058, of 17 December 2003, and registration granted though title No. 29597 of 28 April 2004, ‘Textura Superficie Old Parr’ for alcoholic beverages, Instituto Ecuatoriano de la Propiedad Intelectual (IEPI).

64 US – Section 211 Appropriations Act, WT/DS176/AB/R, para. 155.

65 Daniel R. Bereskin, supra note 16, at 6.

66 Peter-Tobias Stoll, supra note 13, at 310.

67 See the fourth sentence of Article 15.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.

68 Dave, Sanjeev, ‘TRIPs: International Trademark Law That Promotes Global Trade’, 12 Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues (2001–2002) 458 Google Scholar, at 463.

69 Ibid., at 459.

70 WIPO SCT/17/3 Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications, ‘Relation of Established Principles to Non-traditional trademarks’, Geneva, 2007, para. 4.

71 Albania, Armenia, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cabo Verde, Chile, Columbia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Latvia, Lithuania, Macao, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, New Zealand, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Samoa, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom, European Union.

72 See Article 3 of Directive (EU) 2015/2436 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trademarks.

73 Case C-273/00, Ralf Sieckmann v. Deutches patent-und Markenamt Chanel's Application. Case C-283/01, Shield Mark BV v. Joost Kist [2004] RPC 17.

74 Ng, Elizabeth Siew Kuan, ‘The TRIPS Agreement and its Implementation in Relation to Singapore Intellectual Property Law’, 9 Singapore Academy of Law Journal (1997) 334 Google Scholar, at 348.

75 Nuno Pires de Carvalho, supra note 14, at 297.

76 Annette Kur, supra note 8, at 99.

77 Angola, Antigua and Bermuda, Bahrain, Barbados, Benin, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameron, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Iceland, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Niger, Philippines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga, Vietnam.

78 WIPO SCT/16/2, supra note 3, para.40.

79 Article 2 of Uruguay Trademark Law.

80 See Article 17.2.2 of US–AU FTA, Article 18.2.1 of KORUS FTA, Article 14.2.1 of US–Bahrain FTA, Article 16.2.1 of US–Peru FTA, Article 15.2.1 US–Oman FTA, Article 15.2.1 US–Morocco FTA, Article 16.2.1 of US–Colombia FTA, Article 13.2 of Australia–Korea FTA. See also Article 15.2.1 US–Panama FTA, Article 17.2.1 of US–Chile FTA, Article 16.2.1 of US–Singapore FTA, Article 17.9 of Australia–Chile FTA, Article 16.9.1 of Canada–Korea FTA, Article 15.11.2 of China–Korea FTA.

81 Armenia, Canada, Chile, Ecuador, Oman, Peru, Korea, Tunisia, Japan, China, and Taiwan.

82 Section 134 of Andean Community Decision No. 486 Establishing the Common Industrial Property Regime. (Andean Community Members: Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru.)

83 See Article 18.18 of Trans-Pacific Partnership.

84 Joanna Schimidt-Szalewski, supra note 23, at 189.

85 Schuyler, William E., ‘Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property – A View of the Proposed Revision’, 8 North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation (1982–1983) 155 Google Scholar, at 166.

86 Joanna Schimidt-Szalewski, supra note 23, at 201.

87 Articles 1–12 and Article 19 of the Paris Convention.

88 Elizabeth Siew Kuan Ng, supra note 74, at 348.

89 Heald, Paul J., ‘Trademarks and Geographical Indications: Exploring the Contours of the TRIPS Agreement’, 29 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law (1996) 635 Google Scholar, at 639.

90 US – Section 211 Appropriations Act, WT/DS176/AB/R, para.130.

91 Lisa P. Ramsey, supra note 18, at 417.

92 US – Section 211 Appropriations Act, WT/DS176/AB/R, para. 133.

93 Joanna Schimidt-Szalewski, supra note 23, at 194.

94 US – Section 211 Appropriations Act, WT/DS176/AB/R, para.134.

95 See Article 6quinquies of the Paris Convention of Stockholm (1967). ‘Every trademark duly registered in the country of origin shall be accepted for filling and protected as is in the other countries of the Union, subject to the reservations indicated in this Article’.

96 Actes 1911, pp 296–297. Washington Conference (1911) changed the basis for application of provision from prior filing to prior registration.

97 The country of origin must be a country of the Union where the applicant has a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment or, alternatively, in which he has his domicile, or otherwise, the country of the Union of which he is a national.

98 Cottier, Thomas and Veron, Pierre, Concise International and European IP Law: TRIPS, Paris Convention, European Enforcement and Transfer of Technology (Kluwer Law International: 2008)Google Scholar, at 237.

99 See Paragraph 4 of Final Protocol of the Paris Convention of 1883.

100 US – Section 211 Appropriations Act, WT/DS176/AB/R, para.137, 139.

101 Wintert, Walter, ‘Home Country Registration-Article 6 Paris Convention’, 40 Trademark Reporter (1950) 189 Google Scholar.

102 Stenshoel, Eric, ‘From Berne to Madrid and Beyond: The road to international copyright and trademark protection in the United States’, 24 Arts and Sports Law Journal (2013) 1 Google Scholar.

103 See Section B and Section C of Article 6quinquies of the Paris Convention. The competent authority should dettermine: (1) whether the applied trademark infringes rights of third parties acquired in the protecting country; (2) whether the applied trademark consists of non-distinctive marks, descriptive mark or generic names; (3) whether the applied trademark is contrary to morality or public order, or of such a nature as to deceive the public; (4) whether registration of the trademark would constitute an act of unfair competition; (5) whether the trademark is used in a form essentially different from that registered in the country of origin.

104 See Article 25.1 of the Paris Convention. Any country party to this Convention undertakes to adopt, in accordance with its constitution, the measures necessary to ensure the application of this Convention.

105 Bodenhausen, Guide to the Application of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property – As Revised at Stockholm in 1967 (United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property, Geneva, 1968)Google Scholar, at 108.

106 See Section 44(e) of Lanham Act; Article 14.1 of Canada Trademarks Act; Part 4 of Sweden Trademark Act; Article 35.1 of Denmark Trademarks Act; Section 29 of Finland Trademarks Act; Section 16 of Israeli Trademarks Ordinance.

107 Annette Kur, supra note 8, at 98.

108 Jaak Ostrat, Direct Implementation of International Treaties and the European Law in the Intellectual Property Practice in Estonia,  http://www.lasvet.ee/est/g22s45 (accessed 13 April 2016).

109 Knudsen, Fridtiof, ‘The Norwegian 1961 Trademark Act’, 65 Trademark Reporter (1975) 177 Google Scholar, at 179.

110 Application of F. Jacobson & Sons, Inc., NIR 82/1973. Application of Honig Merkartikelen B.V. Koog aan de Zaan, NIR 83/1973.

111 Dan Segal, A Short Guide to the Israeli Trademark System,  http://dsip.co.il/a-short-guide-to-the-israeli-trademark-system/ (accessed 13 April 2016).

112 Friedrich-Karl Beier and Arnold Reimer, supra note 4, at 1268.

113 de Maillard de Lafay, Le Marquis, ‘The Registration of Trademarks telle quelle’, in Transactions of the International Association for the Protection of Industrial Property, Vol. IX (London: Spottiswoode & Co. Ltd., 1906)Google Scholar, at 119.

114 L. A. Ellwood, supra note 7, at 40.

115 The Patents, Designs and Trade-Mark Act of 1883, as amended by the Act of 1888. Section 103(3). ‘The application for the grant of a patent or the registration of a design or the registration of a trademark under this section must be made in the same manner as an ordinary application under this Act, provided that, in the case of trademarks, any trademark the registration of which has been duly applied for in the country of origin may be registered under this Act.’ The provision was re-enacted in Section 91(3)(b) of the Patents and Designs Act of 1907, and was finally repealed by Section 7 of the Patents, etc., International Conventions Act 1938. See also Annand, Ruth E.. ‘Lookalikes under the New United Kingdom Trademarks Act 1994’, 86 Trademark Reporter (1996) 142 Google Scholar. ‘There is still no express provision implementing the “telle quelle” obligation.’

116 Carter Medicine Co. Trademark [1892] 9 R.P.C. 401.

117 California Fig Syrup Co. Mark [1888] 6 R.P.C. 126.

118 Le Marquis de Maillard de Lafay, supra note 114, at 119–125.

119 Actes, 1900, p. 356. ‘Her Britannic Majesty's Government attaches itself to a proposal of the French Government for retaining the present text of Article VI of the Convention of 1883 and Clause 4 of the final protocol, provided that it be understood that the contracting parties remain free to retain their actual law upon this point. It is nevertheless understood that assimilation exists upon this point between foreigners and natives.’

120 Kerly, D. M., The Law of Trademarks, Tradename, and Merchandise Marks (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1894)Google Scholar, at 457–459.

121 L. A. Ellwood, supra note 7, at 43.

122 Gill, H. A., ‘Object of the AIPPI and its Influence on the Drafting and Amendment of the International Convention’, 44 Trademark Reporter (1954) 244 Google Scholar, at 253.

123 Le Marquis de Maillard de Lafay, supra note 114, at 119.

124 H. A. Gill, supra note 123, at 253.

125 Le Marquis de Maillard de Lafay, supra note 114, at 125.

126 Dinwoodie, Graeme B., ‘Trademarks and Territory: Detaching the Trademark Law from the Nation-state’, 41 Houston Law Review (2004–2005) 885 Google Scholar, at 974.

127 McAuliffe, Jeremiah D., ‘Prospects for Improved Protection of Trademarks in International Trade’, 61 Trademark Reporter (1971) 82 Google Scholar, at 85.

128 Dassas, Gerard, ‘Survey of Experience under the French Trademark Law’, 66 Trademark Reporter (1976) 485 Google Scholar.

129 Kania, Edward J., ‘International Trademark and Copyright Protection’, 8 Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal (1985–1986) 722 Google Scholar, at 726.

130 Reichman, J. H., ‘Universal Minimum Standards of Intellectual Property Protection under the TRIPS Component of the WTO Agreement’, 29 International Lawyer (1995) 345 Google Scholar, at 362.

131 Ricketson, Sam, The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2015)Google Scholar para. 12.18.

132 Friedrich-Karl Beier and Arnold Reimer, supra note 4, at 1268.

133 Sam Ricketson, supra note 132, para. 12.16.

134 Bodenhausen, supra note 106, at 87.

135 Bodenhausen, supra note 106, at 111.

136 Muster mid Warenschutz XXXII, 152-GRUR.

137 International Registration Number: 659177; 836242; 881229; 889242; 1026524.

138 Bodenhausen, supra note 106, at 111.

139 Sam Ricketson, supra note 132, para. 12.16.

140 Thomas Cottier, Pierre Veron, supra note 99, at 240.

141 Seligsohn, Ernst, ‘Recent Developments in the Law of Trademarks and Unfair Competition in Israel’, 63 Trademark Reporter (1973) 283 Google Scholar, at 287.

142 H. A. Gill, supra note 123, at 253.

143 Bereskin, Daniel R. and Sawchuk, Aaron, ‘Crocker Revisited: The Protection of Trademarks of Foreign Nationals in the United States’, 93 Trademark Reporter (2003) 1199 Google Scholar, at 1209.

144 Pauwelyn, Jooat, ‘The Dog That Barked But Didn't Bite: 15 Years of Intellectual Property Disputes at the WTO’, 1 Journal of International Dispute Settlement (2010) 389 Google Scholar, at 419.

145 WIPO, Intellectual Property Handbook: Policy, Law and Use, para. 5.103,  http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/iprm/ (accessed 13 March 2016).

146 Ibid., para. 5.104.

147 Ladas, Stephen P., ‘The Lanham and International Trade’, 14 Law and Contemporary Problems (1949) 269 Google Scholar.

148 Nuno Pires de Carvalho, supra note 14, at 278.

149 Ladas, Stephen P., ‘Trademark and Foreign Trade’, 38 Trademark Reporter (1948) 278 Google Scholar, at 283.

150 Sam Ricketson, supra note 132, para. 12.06.

151 WIPO Handbook, supra note 146, para.5.99.

152 WIPO Handbook, supra note 146, para.5.99.

153 WIPO SCT 16/2, supra note 3, para. 59.

154 Annette Kur, supra note 8, 98.

155 Le Marquis de Maillard de Lafay, supra note 114, at 119.

156 Actes, 1880, 2nd edn, p. 105. Russian law protected only marks written in Russian letters so that no French mark could have been accepted in Russia; the problem was solved by correspondence whereby it had been agreed that ‘French marks duly deposited in France should be admitted in their original form and protected in Russia although their lettering was in French’. The Brazil delegate drafted the provision that ‘Every trademark validly registered in the country of origin shall be admitted for registration in the form originally registered, in all the other countries of the Union’, which is the foundation stone of Article 6 of Paris Convention.

157 See Paragraph 4 of Final Protocol of the Paris Convention of 1883.

158 Patents, Stephen P. Ladas, Trademarks, and Related Rights: National and International Protection (Harvard University Press, 1975)Google Scholar, at 1214.

159 The ‘telle quelle’ provisions had been modified on several points by the Revision Conference of Washington (1911), The Hague (1925) and London (1934).

160 Actes Washtington 1911, pp.50/1.

161 US – Section 211 Appropriations Act, WT/DS176/AB/R, para.146.

162 WIPO Handbook, supra note 146, para 5.100.

163 Friedrich-Karl Beier and Arnold Reimer, supra note 4, at 1268.

164 Le Marquis de Maillard de Lafay, supra note 114, at 125.

165 Zelnick, Allan, ‘Shake the Lemon Tree: Use and Paris Union Treaty’, 67 Trademark Reporter (1977) 329 Google Scholar, at 340.

166 Sam Ricketson, supra note 132, para. 12.16.

167 Peter-Tobias Stoll, supra note 13, at 312.

168 See Article 1.3 of the Paris Convention.

169 Le Marquis de Maillard de Lafay, supra note 114, at 119–125.

170 Sam Ricketson, supra note 132, para. 12.16.

171 Friedrich-Karl Beier and Arnold Reimer, supra note 4, at 1269.

172 Actes, 1880, 2nd Edition, p. 108.

173 Friedrich-Karl Beier and Arnold Reimer, supra note 4, at 1267.

174 J. H. Reichman, supra note 131, at 362.

175 Daniel Gervais, supra note 10, at 105.

176 WIPO SCT/16/2, supra note 3, para. 57.

177 Nuno Pires de Carvalho, supra note 14, at 301.

178 Nuno Pires de Carvalho, supra note 14, at 316.

179 Sanjeev Dave, supra note 68, at 459.

180 US – Section 211 Appropriations Act, WT/DS176/AB/R, para.156.

181 Nuno Pires de Carvalho, supra note 14, at 301.

182 Gervais, supra note 10, at 106.

183 Peter-Tobias Stoll, supra note 13, at 313.

184 See Article 2 of the Paris Convention.

185 Peter-Tobias Stoll, supra note 13, at 313.

186 Marsoof, Althaf, ‘TRIPS Compatibility of Sri Lankan Trademark Law’, 15 Journal of World Intellectual Property (2012) 51 Google Scholar, at 72.

187 Ibid., at 72.

188 Thomas Cottier, Pierre Veron, supra note 99, at 238.

189 Peter-Tobias Stoll, supra note 13, at 312.

190 Stephen P. Ladas, supra note 150, at 282.

191 Ramdn Soldrzano, ‘Registrations of Foreign Trade-Marks in Mexico’ (1952) 42 TMR. 615.

192 US – Section 211 Appropriations Act, WT/DS176/AB/R, para.15.

193 Stephen P. Ladas, supra note 150, at 283.

194 Dinwoodie, Graeme B. and Dreyfuss, Rochelle C., ‘Designing a Global Intelletual Property System Responsive to Change: The WTO, WIPO and Beyond’, 46 Houston. Law Review (2009–2010) 1187 Google Scholar, at 1200.

195 Sam Ricketson, supra note 132, para. 12.07.

196 US – Section 211 Appropriations Act, WT/DS176/AB/R, para. 133.

197 Ibid, para. 133.

198 See Article 6quinquies D of the Paris Convention (1967) states.

199 WIPO, ‘Guide to the International Registration of Marks under the Madrid Agreement and the Madrid Protocol’, at B.II. 2.01,  http://www.wipo.int/madrid/en/guide/ (accessed 10 July 2016)

200 See Article 2.1 of the Paris Convention of Stockholm (1967).

201 Allan Zelnick, supra note 166, at 339.

202 US – Section 211 Appropriations Act, WT/DS176/R, para. 8.80.

203 US – Section 211 Appropriations Act, WT/DS176/AB/R, para.136.

204 Allan Zelnick, supra note 166, at 342.

205 Walter Wintert, supra note 102, at 195.

206 Joanna Schimidt-Szalewski, supra note 23, at 194.

207 WIPO Handbook, supra note 146, at para.5.81.

208 Solorzano, Ramon, ‘Registrations of Foreign Trade-Marks in Mexico’, 42 Trademark Reporter (1952) 615 Google Scholar.

209 Peter-Tobias Stoll, supra note 13, at 310.

210 See Article 15.1 and 15.2 of the TRIPS Agreement.

211 Allan Zelnick, supra note 166, at 339.

212 Thomas Cottier, Pierre Veron, supra note 99, at 240.

213 US – Section 211 Appropriations Act, WT/DS176/AB/R, para. 4.26–4.29.