According to Article 12 of the Liechtenstein Trademark Act in connection with Article 14 of the Trademark Act, the nature of goods or services is no criterion for the registration of a trademark.

To answer this question, Article 6 of the Liechtenstein Trademark Act has to be quoted. A trademark which is going to be registered must comprise essential features that distinguish it from those marks that have already been registered. The reproduction of certain figures in a new mark, which belong to marks already deposited shall not exclude the new mark from the right deriving from registration if those figures differ sufficiently from the mark already deposited and, taken as a whole, do not easily lead to confusion.

In the Trademark Act of 1928, the term "well-known mark" does not exist. Besides that fact, only national registered well-known trademarks can fall into the scope of the Trademark Act. Unregistered well-known marks are protected in that respect, that each application handed in at the national office has to fulfil the obligations set out in the Trademark Act and in the Ordinance corresponding to the Act, and each application is subject to an examination based on the rules in the Trademark Act and the Ordinance on the Protection of Trademarks, Geographical Indications and Industrial Labelling. In the revision of the Trademark Act, which has passed Parliament in its first reading, the term "well-known mark" will be introduced.

As mentioned in the prior answer, the term "well-known mark" does not exist in the current Trademark Act of 1928. However, it has to be noted that the revision of the current Trademark Act will pass Parliament most probably in December. In order to fully comply with the TRIPS Agreement, the term "well-known mark" is introduced in this revised Trademark Act. Articles 3 and 15 of the revised Liechtenstein Trademark Act will provide for the protection of a well-known trademark, taking into account the obligations set out in Articles 16.2 and 16.3 of the TRIPS Agreement. According to Article 3.2(b) of the revised Liechtenstein Trademark Act, unregistered well-known trademarks will be considered as earlier trademarks conferring the right to intervene against the registration of later trademarks for identical or similar products and services. According to Article 15 the owner of a trademark of wide repute (internationally well-known) may prohibit others from using a trademark for any type of goods and services, if such use would endanger the distinctiveness of the trademark or would exploit or damage its reputation.

The owner of a registered trademark has the exclusive right to prevent all third parties not having his consent from using identical or similar signs for goods or services which are identical or similar to those in respect of which the trademark is registered and where such use would result in likelihood of confusion. This provision is contained in Article 24 of the Trademark Act.

The protection for initial registration is 20 years. The obligations of Article 8 of the Trademark Act are as follows. The protection deriving from registration of a mark shall last for 20 years as from the day of its deposit with the Office of National Economy. The proprietor of a mark may, at any time, request the renewal of the registration for the same duration. Renewal shall be subject to the payment of the same fee and to the same formalities as those provided for first registrations. When the renewal of the registration is not requested within six months of the expiry of the term of protection at the latest, the registration shall be cancelled.

In compliance with Article 19 of the TRIPS Agreement, Article 9 of the Liechtenstein Trademark Act contains the following obligations. If the proprietor of a mark has made no use of the mark during three successive years, the court may order, at the request of an interested party, that the mark be cancelled unless the proprietor is able to adequately justify his failure to use the mark. The use of a mark by a third party having commercial ties with the proprietor or by a licence shall be considered as use of the mark by the proprietor himself, if the latter exercises control over the quality of the products or services marked and if the use of the mark is not likely to mislead the public.

The procedure governing the cancellation of a registered trademark can be found in Article 24 of the Ordinance on the Protection of Trademarks, Geographical Indications and Industrial Labelling of 15 June 1964. The text of the Ordinance which was also subject of notification can be found in document IP/N/1/LIE/I/2 dated 24 June 1996. The cancellation of a trademark due to non-use is also covered by the obligations of Article 24 of the above-mentioned Ordinance. The minimum period is three successive years.

In Article 15 of the Ordinance on the Protection of Trademarks, Geographical Indications and Industrial Labelling, a specification of the content of a registration is given. Indent 8 of Article 15 constitutes the possibility to claim priority of the first application in a foreign country. Although no exact definition of priority is given, it has to be recognised that, in harmony with the Paris Convention, the right of priority for a period of six months for trademarks (and industrial designs) is given if it is claimed.

(a) Liechtenstein has used the method of creating a special law to protect designs and models. The protection of designs is guaranteed by: - Act on Designs and Models (LR 232.12 LGBl. 1928 No.14), adopted 26 October 1928 and entered into force 3 November 1928. The Act contains the following points: definition, registration and protection of rights of industrial designs; priority rights, rights acquired by expositions. - Ordinance to the Act on Designs and Models (LR 232.121; LGBl. 1965 No.28), adopted 15 June 1964 and entered into force 25 June 1965. - Ordinance on the Fees for the Registration of Designs and Models (LR 232.121.1; LGBl. 1991 No.12), adopted 22 January 1991 and entered into force 16 March 1991. (b) According to Article 2 of the Design Act in connection with Article 12, paragraph 1, industrial designs are externally conditioned forms, which are supposed to be used as models for industrial production. They are protected as far as they are new and original. Application formalities are (Articles 5 and 15 of the Design Act): - filing of a deposition request; - deposition of a design item; - payment of the fee for the first period of protection. The legal claims to be fulfilled by the register and the exact content of a single registration are subject to description in the Ordinance to the Act on Designs in Article 14 and following. (c) Owners have the right to prevent third parties from using a valid deposited design for purposes of distribution and commercial use (Article 5.2 Design Act). The term of protection is three times five years (Article 8 Design Act). (d) The following remedies are available to the right owner: sue for damages, provisional measures, attachment, confiscation, exploitation, publication of the sentence. (e) There is no explicit Article referring to exceptions in the Design Act. Following Article 5, paragraph 2 of the Design Act, it can be assumed that the exception of personal use applies.

Following Article 2 of the Design Act and the general definition given therein, it can be assumed that the protection of textile designs is given by the scope of the Design Act.

Concerning the registration of trademarks related to wines or spirits, there are no special provisions provided in the Trademark Act which give an exclusive protection for wines and spirits. In general, following Article 18.3 of the Trademark Act and Article 3lit.b of the Unfair Competition Act, it is not allowed to use geographical indications not corresponding with the real origin of the goods. It has further to be noted that the legal protection provided by the Trademark Act is applicable also to infringement of geographical indications of wines and spirits.

According to Article 1bis of the Liechtenstein Trademark Act, protection is granted for goods and services. Provisions expressly stating the requirements of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention are not known at the present time. In order to get in compliance with the exigencies of the TRIPS Agreement, these requirements have been taken into consideration in the revision of the Trademark Act.

It has to be noted, that the revision has not passed Parliament yet. The second and third reading of the revised Trademark Act will take place in the December session of Parliament. Therefore, at the moment no official translation of the revised text is available. The notification in English will be handed in after the Trademark Act has entered into force. Nevertheless, it can be stated that the requirements of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention and Articles 16.2 and 16.3 of the TRIPS Agreement will be taken into account in Articles 3 and 15 of the revised Trademark Act. Referring to the facts mentioned above, the obligations set out in Article 3 deal with the relative exceptions which do not allow a registration of a mark, for example, the identity with an earlier trademark for the same or similar goods and services, the similarity with an earlier trademark for the same or similar goods and the definition of an earlier mark. The obligations set out in Article 15 have been summarized in the answer to the follow-up question to initial question 6 from the United States.

Regarding the protection of textile designs, the general term of an industrial design or model is given in Article 2 of the Law on Models and Industrial Designs. This positive formulation defines the scope or the term of the model and industrial design, which includes also a textile design and its protection. Article 2 has to be read in connection with Article 3 of the Act. Therein, a negative definition of the term of an industrial design and model is given. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, it can be assumed that the protection of textile designs is covered by the scope of the national law. The following Ordinances do regulate the system of costs, examination and publication: - Ordinance to the Act on Designs and Models, adopted 15 June 1964 and entered into force 25 June 1965; - Ordinance on the Fees for Registration of Designs and Models, adopted 22 January 1991 and entered into force 16 March 1991. Both Ordinances have been subject of notification under Article 63.2 of the TRIPS Agreement and have been published in document IP/N/1/LIE/D/2 dated 19 July 1996. In addition to the above-mentioned remarks, we would like to draw attention to the fact that, in Liechtenstein, only a very small number of designs and models is registered and that no case law has ever occurred.

The first paragraph of TRIPS Article 26 says "... prevent third parties not having the owner's consent from making, selling ... a design which is a copy, or substantially a copy of the protected design ...". We would like to draw attention to the fact that in the Liechtenstein notification of this Act, which was handed in in French and published in document IP/N/1/LIE/I/1, the expression "contrefait la marque" was used. The term "contrefait" corresponds to the wording in TRIPS Article 26. There is no difference in substance between the wording in the TRIPS Agreement and the text notified by Liechtenstein. The assumption of a difference between the Liechtenstein law and the obligations given by the TRIPS Agreement regarding the word "making" and its french translation into "contrefaire" can be cleared off by regarding the meaning of the word "contrefaire", which is the reproduction by imitation.

In Article 26, paragraph 3 of the TRIPS Agreement, a duration of protection for at least ten years is required. In Liechtenstein, the term of protection is three times five years. The only reason for not prolongating the term of protection would be caused if the necessary fees for the second period of protection would not have been paid. When the term of protection of a model or design is prolongated, the application is not reviewed again. Articles 21 and 22 of the Ordinance to the Act on Designs and Models, adopted 15 June 1964 and entered into force 25 June 1965, include the obligations to which the national office has to adhere to in the case of prolongation of the term of protection. Following these obligations, it can be stated that the only reason for not getting the further terms of protection is the non-payment of the registration fees by the depositor or his representative. So, the Liechtenstein term of protection of three times five years is not contrary to the spirit of paragraph 3 of Article 26 of TRIPS.

The revised Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications has been submitted to Parliament in early summer and has been treated in the Parliament's session of 18 and 19 September 1996 in first reading. It can be assumed, that the necessary second and third reading of the revised law can take place in the session of Parliament in December 1996. With this assumed timetable the putting to force of the revised Law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications can be expected for the beginning of 1997.

In general, the revision of the Trademark Act has been welcomed by all parties which are represented in Parliament. Taking into account the comments of the first reading of the revised law on Trademarks and Geographical Indications, the government proposes the following changes of the law for the second and third reading. As announced by the government during the first reading in Parliament, the question of introducing proceedings to oppose the registration of a trademark, was reviewed again. In considering carefully the benefits and expenses and the critical vote of the Parliamentarians, it was decided to resign the opposing procedures. In addition, some more minor adjustments and clarifications have been introduced into the revised law. For example, the definition of the protection of an acoustic mark under the new Trademark Act, the replacement of the term "berühmte Marke" which means "famous trademark", by the term "bekannte Marke", which corresponds to the term "well-known mark", as mentioned in both the EC Council Directive on Trademarks and the TRIPS Agreement. Some adjustments in wording (not in content) have been made in regard to the penalty provisions. The second and the third reading of the Parliament will take place from 11 to 13 December 1996.

In order to be in harmony with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement concerning the legislation of industrial designs, a partial revision of the existing Liechtenstein Law has been submitted to the government and will be brought forward to Parliament within a short time. The entry into force of the partial revision may be expected within the first six months of 1997. The total revision of the Liechtenstein Law on Industrial Designs will take place in order to transpose the provisions contained in the proposal for a Council Directive on the Legal Protection of Designs (COM (93) 344). As mentioned in Article 19 of the proposed Directive, the laws and regulations which are necessary to comply with this Directive have to be brought into force by 1 January 1998.