In Finland industrial designs are, as a general rule, protected by registration according to the Registered Designs Act (No. 221/71, as subsequently amended). The protection of the design may also be based on the Copyright Act, provided that the work fulfills a certain level of originality, or by the Trademarks Act, provided that the work can be distinguished from those of others (see answer to US question 1 above). Other possible forms of protection in certain situations are utility model law (novelty, inventive step, clear distinctiveness), patent law (novelty, inventive step, industrial applicability, clear distinctiveness) and rules on unfair competition. These forms of protection are not mutually exclusive. There are no particular provisions concerning textile designs in the Finnish Registered Designs Act. The same rules that are applied to other designs, apply also to the protection of textile designs. The average period for the examination of an application for registration of a design is ten months. Concerning the fees collected by the registration authority, as an example may be presented that for the first five years the basic registration fee is FIM 780, which, added by the publication fee (2 x FIM 180), means FIM 228 a year.

The concept of assigning includes also selling.

Article 7 of the Registered Designs Act states, that it may be provided by a decree that spare parts and accessories for aircraft, regardless of the protection of designs, may be imported to Finland for the repair of aircraft belonging to a foreign country in which corresponding benefits are accorded to Finnish aircraft. Such decree has not been passed and the Article has become a dead letter.

The Finnish Registered Designs Act provides for the protection for five years from the date of application of registration. The registration may be renewed for two additional five-year periods. Consequently, the maximum term of protection is 15 years. The request for renewal may be made a year before the termination of the registration as well as until six months after the termination. The renewal process is very simple. The registration authority controls that the renewal fee and other possible fees have been paid and makes the necessary indications to the register (concerning the renewal, owner of the design or the attorney), after which the renewal decision is filed to the owner of the design. No novelty examination is done during the renewal process.

1. French courts have sole competence to recognize the validity of a priority right claimed. 2. Subject to paragraph 1 above, the Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle (National Industrial Property Institute) would accept a claim to a right of priority based on prior filing of a trademark application in any WTO Member even if it is a country applying the transitional period provided for in the TRIPS Agreement.

The TRIPS Agreement does not impose the obligation of actual use of a mark as a condition for filing an application for registration. In France, the filing of an application for registration (Article L 713-1 of the Intellectual Property Code) does not have to be preceded by use and is not conditional upon intent to use.

Article 18 of the TRIPS Agreement does not stipulate that the term of protection should begin on registration. It imposes a minimum term of protection of seven years. In France, trademark law is applicable as from the filing date (Article L 712-1, Intellectual Property Code). The term of protection of ten years from the filing date is therefore in conformity with Article 18.

Assuming that there is nothing irregular about the application for trademark registration, the average pendency to registration in the French Industrial Property Office (INPI) is six months.

Pursuant to Article L 713-2 of the Intellectual Property Code, marks relating to a sign and goods identical to a previously registered mark without account being taken of the likelihood of confusion are cancelled by the courts or refused registration by the French authorities through opposition proceedings. There is therefore no need to provide for a presumption of confusion.

In accordance with the Intellectual Property Code, two cases must be distinguished: (1)According to Article L 713-2, where an identical mark is used on identical goods, no risk of confusion is required in order to prohibit such use. Thus there is no need to establish a presumption of confusion. (2)On the other hand, according to Article L 713-3, where a similar mark is used on identical goods, it is for the holder of the right in the mark to prove risk of confusion.

France has been a member of the Union of the Paris Convention since 7 July 1884 and, therefore, since that date has applied Article 6bis of that Convention, as embodied in Article 16.2 of the TRIPS Agreement. In this connection, Article L 711-4a of the Intellectual Property Code provides that a sign prejudicing "(...) an earlier mark that has been registered or that is well known within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property" cannot be registered as a mark. Article L 714-3 provides for the nullity of such marks. With respect to Article 16.3 of the TRIPS Agreement, the Intellectual Property Code contains a similar provision. Article L 713-5 of the Code provides that: "Anyone who uses a mark enjoying repute for goods or services that are not similar to those designated in the registration shall be liable under civil law if such use is likely to cause prejudice to the owner of the mark or if such use constitutes unjustified exploitation of the mark. The provisions of the foregoing paragraph shall apply to the use of a well-known mark within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property referred to above."

Yes, the owner of an unregistered well-known mark can bring an action in the courts against the user of that mark, in particular on the basis of Article L 714-3 of the Intellectual Property Code.

This question relates to the "Civil and Administrative Procedures and Remedies" section of the TRIPS Agreement, scheduled for review in November 1997.

Article 19.1 of the TRIPS Agreement provides that: "If use is required to maintain a registration, the registration may be cancelled only after an uninterrupted period of at least three years of non-use, unless valid reasons based on the existence of obstacles to such use are shown by the trademark owner. Circumstances arising independently of the will of the owner of the trademark which constitute an obstacle to the use of the trademark, such as import restrictions on or other government requirements for goods or services protected by the trademark, shall be recognized as valid reasons for non-use." Conversely, Article L 714-5 of the Intellectual Property Code permits the owner of a trademark to avoid forfeiture of the trademark for non-use during a period of five years by invoking good reasons, i.e. a de jure or de facto obstacle which cannot be attributed to the owner's fault or negligence. The following excuses are recognized as legitimate: -major difficulties in procuring raw materials; -time-period required in order to obtain authorization to place the product on the market.

Article 2 of Law No. 94-665 of 4 August 1994 on the use of the French language provides that "wording and marking registered with the trademark" must be translated so as to be "as readable, audible and intelligible as the presentation in foreign languages". The circular issued to implement this Law specifies that only the wording and marking describing the goods or services concerned must be translated, even if registered within a trademark. On the other hand, there is no such obligation in the case of the trademark itself.

A trademark which contains or consists of a geographical indication for wines or spirits not having this origin may not be registered or may be invalidated pursuant to Article L 711-3 of the Intellectual Property Code, which provides: "The following may not be adopted as a mark or an element of a mark: (a)signs excluded by Article 6ter of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property of 20 March 1883, as revised; (b)signs contrary to public policy or morality or whose use is forbidden by law; (c)signs liable to mislead the public, particularly as regards the nature, quality or geographical origin of the goods or services." In the Bill for the transposition of the TRIPS Agreement currently before Parliament, the French authorities have proposed, in the Intellectual Property Code, a strengthening of this protection expressly relating to Article 23.2.

The relationship between trademarks and geographical indications is governed by both Community provisions and French provisions, namely under Articles 14.2 and 14.3 of Council Regulation 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs , and Article L 115-5, paragraph 4, of Law 93-949 of 26 July 1993 on the Consumer Code. These provisions establish, in particular, that the use of a trademark registered in good faith before the date of filing of the application for registration of a geographical indication may continue notwithstanding the registration of the geographical indication, where the trademark is not liable to nullity or forfeiture owing to a risk of misleading the consumer.

Systems of protection Industrial designs may be protected by copyright (Intellectual Property Code, Book I), as well as by the law relating to designs, where an application has been filed (Intellectual Property Code, Book V). The two types of protection may be cumulative. Designs the form of which is inseparable from the functionality may be protected only by patent (patent rights and design rights are not cumulative). Requirements for protection Copyright protection arises from the fact of creation alone, without formality of filing (Intellectual Property Code, Article L 111-1). The criterion is that of originality, i.e. the stamp of the author's personality. With respect to designs, Article L 511-3 of the Intellectual Property Code indicates that the criterion is that of novelty (designs must "differ from similar articles" and reveal a creative effort). The novelty of a registered design is not destroyed by publicity prior to the filing, where such publicity is by the owner (Intellectual Property Code, Article L 511-6). The appreciation of novelty and originality results from a comparison between, on the one hand, the created design and, on the other, the designs having an earlier date of creation. The latter are called priority designs ("antériorités"). They are timeless, universal and must be all of a piece (in other words they cannot be combined). Term of protection In the case of copyright, the term of protection runs for the author's life and 50 years after his death (the post mortem term should shortly be raised to 70 years). The filing of a design confers protection for 25 years from its date, renewable once (for a total term of 50 years: Intellectual Property Code, Article L 513-1). Nature of the rights conferred In the case of rights relating to designs, Article L 511-1 of the Intellectual Property Code provides "that the creator of a design or his successors in title shall have the exclusive right to exploit, sell or have sold such design under the conditions laid down in this Book" [Book V - Industrial Designs]. Nature of remedies This question refers to the "Civil and Administrative Procedures and Remedies" section of the TRIPS Agreement, which is scheduled for review in November 1997. Exceptions to rights granted The exceptions provided in the case of copyright under Article L 122-5 of the Intellectual Property Code are in principle applicable, although hardly adapted to works of applied art. No exceptions are provided for by the law relating to designs.

Article L 512-2, paragraph 2, of the Intellectual Property Code provides that "In the case of designs relating to industries that frequently renew the form and presentation of their goods, filing may be effected in a simplified form (...)". Articles R 512-3 and R 512-4 of the Intellectual Property Code, reproduced below, lay down the conditions for simplified filing. "Article R 512-3. Filing comprises: "1. A declaration of filing established under the conditions laid down in the Order mentioned in Article R 514-5, giving in particular: (a) the identity of the applicant; (b)the number of designs concerned and, for each of them, an indication of its subject matter and the number and title of the graphic or photographic reproductions involved; (c)where appropriate, an indication that the publication of the filing should be postponed, that the right of priority attached to an earlier foreign filing is claimed, or that a certificate of guarantee has been issued pursuant to the law of 13 April 1908. "2. A graphic or photographic reproduction of the designs, submitted in accordance with the above mentioned Order; this reproduction may be accompanied by a brief description. The description is made exclusively for documentary purposes. Its final content shall, if necessary, be definitively drafted by the National Industrial Property Institute. "3. Proof of payment of the prescribed fees. "4. Power of attorney of any authorized agent, if one is appointed, unless he is an industrial property legal consultant. A single application cannot concern more than 100 reproductions of designs. "Article R 512-4. The simplified filing provided for in Article L 512-2, paragraph 5, comprises the documents and information set out in Article R 512-3. However, until the renunciation of postponement provided for in Article R 512-11, the graphic or photographic reproductions of designs are not subject to the presentation requirements laid down in the second paragraph of Article R 512-3 and filing shall be accompanied by proof of payment of a fee regardless of the number of reproductions."

At the end of 1995, the United Kingdom amended its trademarks legislation to recognize a right of priority on the basis of an earlier trademark application filed by any person in any other country which at that time was a WTO Member. The relevant legislative provisions providing this priority right for trademarks applications are Sections 35, 36 and 55 of the Trade Marks Act 1994. Section 35 together with Section 55 of the United Kingdom Trade Marks Act 1994 automatically provides for priority to be accorded to a trade mark application which has been filed in a Paris Convention country. Section 36 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 provides the power to extend the same privilege to other "relevant countries". The countries deemed to be "relevant countries" are specified in The Trade Marks (Claims to Priority from Relevant Countries) Order 1994. This particular measure was amended on 24 November 1995 [with effect from 1 January 1996] to include the following, who at that time were all the WTO Members not party to the Paris Convention: [Part of the response is in Table format] Further amending legislation is currently being produced to update the above list to include those countries who have more recently acceded to the WTO and who are also not party to the Paris Convention.