Examen de la législation d'application de l'Accord sur les ADPIC ‒ Recherche

Réinitialiser
 
 

Aux termes de l'article 63:2 de l'Accord sur les ADPIC, les Membres doivent notifier les lois et réglementations qu'ils auront rendues exécutoires, et qui visent les questions faisant l'objet de l'Accord, au Conseil des ADPIC pour l'aider dans son examen du fonctionnement de l'Accord.

Cette page vous permet d'effectuer une recherche dans les questions et réponses des Membres au sujet des lois et réglementations notifiées. Vous pouvez consulter les résultats de la recherche à l'écran ou les télécharger afin de les imprimer au format Excel. Vous pouvez également télécharger des documents spécifiques.

* Vous n'êtes PAS obligé(e) de sélectionner tous les champs de recherche ci-dessous (uniquement les champs qui sont pertinents pour votre recherche).
* Veuillez noter que les critères de recherche sélectionnés sont cumulatifs et figureront tous dans les résultats de votre recherche.


Page 501 de 677   |   Nombre de documents : 13533

Cote du document Membre notifiant Membre soulevant la question Question Réponse Date de distribution du document  
IP/Q2/NOR/1 Norvège États-Unis d'Amérique 10. Please explain how textile designs are protected under your law.
Textile designs are protected under the Designs Act. Please note that the legal definition of a "design" in Section 1 of the Designs Act also covers textile designs.
24/09/1997
IP/Q2/NOR/1 Norvège Japon 1. Since it is not clearly stipulated in the Designs Act that textile designs are protected in conformity with the TRIPS Agreement, please explain under which provision of the Act or other copyright related law these designs are protected. Moreover, to make sure that the opportunity to seek and obtain protection for textile designs is not impaired unreasonably, please explain your system or practice particularly with regard to cost, examination or publication (cf. paragraph 2 of Article 25 of the TRIPS Agreement).
Textile designs, including fashion, may be protected under the Norwegian Designs Act of 29 May 1970, No 33. Please note that the legal definition of a "design" in Section 1 of the Designs Act also covers textile designs. The registration procedure will shortly be amended. The new procedure, which is expected to enter into force on 1 January 1997, is briefly as follows: -An application for a registration of a design must be made in writing to the Patent Office and must be accompanied by the prescribed fees (Section 10). The basic fee is at present NOK 900. -The Patent Office examines whether the conditions for registration of the design are fulfilled. If the applicant has not complied with the prescribed requirements, or if the Patent Office has other objections to the registration, the applicant shall be notified thereof in an official letter and be requested to express his or her views or make amendments within a specified time limit. If, after the receipt of the applicant's reply, the Patent Office still finds an objection to the acceptance of the application and if the applicant has had occasion to comment on the objection, the application shall be rejected, unless the Patent Office finds reasons for sending the applicant another official letter. -If an application is in the prescribed form and no objection to the registration is found to exist, then the design is registered and the registration is published (Section 18). The public then has four months to enter oppositions (Section 20). If an opposition is entered, then the Patent Office may cancel the registration if it finds that the registration should not have been made, or reject the opposition if it finds nothing wrong with the registration (Section 21). The decision of the Patent Office may be appealed to the Board of Appeals (Section 22). The decision of the Board of Appeals may be brought before a court of law (Section 23). -If the application is in the prescribed form, the design will normally be registered within six months after the filing date. The Patent Office has initiated a project with the aim of speeding up the registration procedure.
24/09/1997
IP/Q2/NOR/1 Norvège Japon 2. The word "selling" is not included in the scope of the right to a design provided for in Section 5 of the Designs Act. If the word "assigning" corresponds to the word "selling", please elaborate on the difference between the two (cf. paragraph 1 of Article 26 of the TRIPS Agreement).
The first paragraph of Section 5 of the Designs Act reads as follows: "The design right implies, with the exceptions established in this Act, that nobody except the holder of the design right (the holder of the design) may without authorization exploit the design commercially by manufacturing, importing, offering for sale, transferring or leasing goods, the appearance of which does not differ essentially from the design, or goods incorporating anything that does not differ essentially from the design." Norway is of the opinion that this provision is consistent with Article 26 of the TRIPS Agreement.
24/09/1997
IP/Q2/NOR/1 Norvège Japon 3. In your country, it is stipulated in Section 7 of the Designs Act that importation of spare parts and accessories to be used for the repair of aircraft may be excluded from the right to a design. Please explain its consistency with paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the TRIPS Agreement allows Members to provide "limited exceptions to the protection of industrial designs, provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably conflict with the normal exploitation of protected industrial designs and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the owner of the protected design, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties". As Japan correctly points out, Section 7 of the Norwegian Designs Act stipulates that importation of spare parts and accessories to be used for the repair of aircraft, may be excluded from the right to design. This provision is necessary in order for Norway to comply with the requirements of Article 27 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, done at Chicago on 7 December 1944, to which Norway is a party. It only allows for very limited exceptions to the protection of industrial designs, and it is the view of Norway that these exceptions do not unreasonably conflict with the normal exploitation of protected industrial designs and that they do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the owner of the protected design. Indeed, it is Norway's understanding that the purpose of paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the TRIPS Agreement is precisely to allow Members to retain provisions like Section 7 of the Norwegian Designs Act.
24/09/1997
IP/Q2/NOR/1 Norvège Japon 4. In your country, the first duration of protection available is less than ten years, and any renewal thereafter cannot be requested at the time of registration. It may happen, therefore, that the duration of protection is less than ten years when the first duration has lapsed and the restoration is not permitted afterwards. Would this not be contrary to the spirit of paragraph 3 of Article 26 of the TRIPS Agreement?
Section 24 of the Norwegian Designs Act stipulates that a design registration shall be in force for up to five years from the day on which the application for registration was filed, and that it may, upon request, be renewed for two further periods of five years each. Each of these latter periods runs from the expiration of the preceding period. There are only two requirements for the renewal of the registration (cf. Section 25): firstly, the renewal must be requested no earlier than one year before and no later than six months after the expiration of the preceding period, and secondly, the applicant must pay the prescribed fees within the same interval. It is left entirely to the holder of the design right to decide whether or not to renew the right. The duration of protection available is thus 15 years. It is difficult to see how this could be contrary to the spirit of paragraph 3 of Article 26 of the TRIPS Agreement.
24/09/1997
IP/Q2/NOR/1 Norvège Union européenne 1. For the purpose of clarification: According to Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, Members shall comply with Articles 1 through 12, and Article 19, of the Paris Convention (1967). The Norwegian Trademarks Act, Section 29 (supplemented by the Trademarks Regulations, Section 11) states that "telle quelle" registration according to Article 6quinquies of the Paris Convention shall be "subject to reciprocity". In light of the fact that the condition of reciprocity was deleted from the Trademarks Act, Sections 18 and 30 regarding priority in order to comply with the TRIPS Agreement, the Government should explain why a condition for reciprocity is upheld in Section 29.
It is merely due to an oversight that the condition of reciprocity was not deleted from the Norwegian Trademarks Act, Section 29, at the same time as the corresponding condition was deleted from Sections 18 and 30. The Norwegian Government has become aware of this oversight and has formally proposed to amend Section 29 of the Trademarks Act (cf. Ot.prp.nr. 73 (1995 96) p. 11). The proposal is currently being considered by the Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget).
24/09/1997
IP/Q2/NOR/1 Norvège Union européenne 2. In the Government's proposal to the Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget) to ratify the TRIPS Agreement, the Government stated that it is necessary to amend Norwegian law in order to implement the protection for geographical indications for wines and spirits under Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement (St.prp.nr. 65 - 1993-94, p. 169). The Norwegian Government should inform about the status of the proposed amendments to Norwegian legislation and at what time these amendments are expected to enter into force.
The Norwegian Government has formally proposed amendments to the Trademarks Act and the Marketing Control Act, in order to ensure full compliance of Norwegian law with the requirements of Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement (cf. Ot.prp.nr. 73 (1995 96) p. 5). The proposal is currently being considered by the Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget). It is expected that the amendments will enter into force on 1 January 1997.
24/09/1997
IP/Q2/NOR/1 Norvège Union européenne 3. Under Article 25.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, each Member shall ensure that requirements for securing protection for textile designs, in particular in regard to any cost, examination or publication, do not unreasonably impair the opportunity to seek and obtain such protection. In the Government's proposal to the Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget) to ratify the TRIPS Agreement (St.prp.nr. 65 - 1993-94, p. 169), the Government held that it is unclear whether Article 25.2 requires specific provisions in Norwegian legislation for the protection of textile designs. According to the Ministry of Justice's green paper of 21 December 1995, the Ministry is of the opinion that the assessment of whether it is necessary to give specific provisions in Norwegian law should be postponed until the international development, especially in the European Union, is further clarified. As the Norwegian Government is obliged to implement the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement within the time limits given in Article 65, the Norwegian Government should clarify whether Norwegian law protects textile designs, including fashion (Article 25.2 of the TRIPS Agreement). If yes, which are the conditions and what is the legal basis?
Textile designs, including fashion, may be protected under the Norwegian Designs Act of 29 May 1970, No. 33. Please note that the legal definition of a "design" in Section 1 of the Designs Act also covers textile designs. Chapter 1 of the Designs Act prescribes the conditions that must be satisfied in order for a design to be registered. Section 2 provides the fundamental condition: "a design may as a general rule only be registered if it differs essentially from what was known prior to the filing date of the application for registration".
24/09/1997
IP/Q2/NZL/1 Nouvelle-Zélande General question Does your country recognize a right of priority on the basis of an earlier trademark application filed in any other WTO Member by a national of a WTO Member?
New Zealand currently recognizes a right of priority on the basis of an earlier trademark application for those countries that are members of the Paris Convention or where New Zealand has a bilateral agreement concerning the priority of trademark applications. An amendment to the Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Convention Order is currently being prepared. The purpose of the amendment is to extend the Convention Order to WTO Members who are not members of the Paris Convention.
19/01/1998
IP/Q2/NZL/1 Nouvelle-Zélande États-Unis d'Amérique 1. Please explain whether the nature of goods or services to which a trademark is to be applied can serve as an obstacle to the registration of the mark under New Zealand law. If so, please identify and explain the subject matter excluded under this authority; the relative provisions of New Zealand law that serve as a basis for these exclusions; and how this practice complies with Article 15.4 of the TRIPS Agreement.
The nature of the goods or services to which a trademark is to be applied do not serve as an obstacle to the registration of the mark under the Trade Marks Act 1953. Therefore, there is no subject matter to identify and New Zealand complies with Article 15.4 of the TRIPS Agreement. (We would note, however, that there is an exception in the above when a trademark applied for involves a geographical indication. This exception is in accordance with the TRIPS Agreement.)
19/01/1998
IP/Q2/NZL/1 Nouvelle-Zélande États-Unis d'Amérique 2. Please explain whether the trademark law of New Zealand establishes a presumption of likelihood of confusion in the determination of confusing similarity in cases where identical marks are used on identical goods, as required by Article 16.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. If so, please identify and explain the legal basis for this presumption.
Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act 1953 (as amended by Section 9 of the Trade Marks Amendment Act 1994) establishes that, where identical marks are applied for on similar or identical goods, a likelihood of confusion is presumed. When this presumption is made, there are several options for the application. The Commissioner of Trade Marks can either: - refuse registration of the mark under Section 16(1); - permit the registration subject to conditions and limitations under Section 17(5); or - require that, if the mark is registered, it is registered as an associated mark to the identical or similar trademark. This is provided for under Section 32 (as amended by Section 16 of the Trade Marks Amendment Act 1994).
19/01/1998
IP/Q2/NZL/1 Nouvelle-Zélande États-Unis d'Amérique 3. Please explain whether and in what regard the provisions concerning acts constituting infringement of a registered trademark specified in Section 10 of the New Zealand Trade Marks Act apply to holders of trademarks registered for services. Please provide relevant information regarding administrative or judicial decisions addressing this issue.
Generally, New Zealand law makes no distinction between marks registered for services and those registered in respect of goods. As your question notes, Section 10 relates to the ways in which properly marked goods may not be subsequently treated, if a written contract exists making the conditions for treatment of the goods explicit. This does not prevent appropriate contracts being entered into in relation to trademarks for services. In this case, contractual remedies would apply. New Zealand has no reported cases on Section 10.
19/01/1998
IP/Q2/NZL/1 Nouvelle-Zélande États-Unis d'Amérique 4. Section 17 of the New Zealand Trade Marks Act does not address or define "well-known" trademarks. Please explain how well-known marks are defined under New Zealand law and how New Zealand has implemented Articles 16.2 and 16.3 of the TRIPS Agreement.
While there is no statutory definition of "well-known mark" in the Trade Marks Act 1953, the Act does still address "well-known" trademarks. Section 17(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1953, as amended by Section 9(1) of the Trade Marks Amendment Act 1994, reads: "(2) Subject to sub-section (5) of this section, no trade mark shall be registered in respect of any goods if the trade mark (or an essential element) is identical or similar to a translation trade mark which is well known in New Zealand (whether through advertising or otherwise) - (a) As respects those goods or any similar goods; or (b) As respects any other goods if the use of the first-mentioned trade mark would be taken as indicating a connection in the course of trade between those other goods and the proprietor of the well known trade mark, and would be likely to prejudice the interests of such proprietor, -- where use of the first-mentioned trade mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion." [emphasis added] (Section 17(4) is the corresponding section relating to service marks.) Although there is no statutory definition of "well-known" trademark, there is guidance in the statute, i.e. well-known "in New Zealand" and "whether through advertising or otherwise". Further, the flexibility inherent in not having a definition of "well-known" mark ensures that the factors mentioned in Article 16.2 of the TRIPS Agreement can be taken into account. For example, in New Zealand, it is Patent Office practice to take account of usage, case law and other evidence filed, in determining whether or not a mark is well-known. We would also note that Sections 17(2) and (4) are not limited to "well-known trademarks" that have been registered. The wording "through advertising or otherwise" clearly covers non-registered marks. Section 17, therefore, prohibits registration of marks identical or confusingly similar to well known marks, whether those well-known marks are registered or not. New Zealand complies with Article 16.3 of the TRIPS Agreement through Section 32, which provides that the Commissioner of Trade Marks may require that marks be registered as associated marks if a connection between goods or services is indicated. The Fair Trading Act 1986 and the common law tort of passing off also provide protection where use of the mark is misleading or deceptive or likely to cause confusion.
19/01/1998
IP/Q2/NZL/1 Nouvelle-Zélande États-Unis d'Amérique [Follow-up questions from the US] (a) If an unregistered well-known mark is to be protected under the common law tort of passing off, must the mark be "in use" in New Zealand? Also, must this "use" be a use in the ordinary course of trade? If the mark is an unregistered well-known mark, can it be protected under this tort, based solely on its reputation?
Unregistered well-known marks may be protected under the common law tort of passing off. The common law tort of passing off has been expanded over time beyond cases where goods of a trader are merely passed off as the goods of another. New Zealand courts have been prepared to recognize that the owner of a trademark or trade name may suffer loss caused as a result of consumers confusing products of one trader with the products of another trader, even though there is no direct competition between the two products. Damages have been awarded for dilution in the value of a name, mark or get up. The extent to which an unregistered well-known mark can be protected by the common law tort of passing off, even though it is not "in use" in New Zealand, will depend on the facts of the individual case. In particular, the courts will consider the extent of the reputation and any goodwill associated with the well-known mark in New Zealand. It is possible that an unregistered well-known mark will be protected under the common law tort of passing off, based solely on its reputation. We note that the Fair Trading Act 1986 may also protect well-known marks not being used in New Zealand.
19/01/1998
IP/Q2/NZL/1 Nouvelle-Zélande États-Unis d'Amérique (b) What provisions of the Fair Trading Act of 1986 protect well-known marks? Is there case law interpreting and applying these provisions?
Sections 9 and 16 of the Fair Trading Act would both be used to protect well-known marks. Section 9 prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct generally. Section 16 is directed at persons in trade who forge any trademark; falsely apply to goods any trademark; or falsely use in relation to services any trademark. Section 16 covers well-known marks that may not be registered in New Zealand. There are several cases which have precedent value in this area.
19/01/1998
IP/Q2/NZL/1 Nouvelle-Zélande États-Unis d'Amérique 5. Please indicate whether, under New Zealand trademark law, a party is prohibited from registering a mark that is identical or confusingly similar to a well-known mark that is unregistered. If so, please provide an explanation of the legal basis for this conclusion.
Please see our answer to question 4 above.
19/01/1998
IP/Q2/NZL/1 Nouvelle-Zélande États-Unis d'Amérique 6. Please describe the methods by which industrial designs are protected in New Zealand, in particular: (a) the form or forms of intellectual property used to protect the design (e.g., patent, copyright, sui generis); (b) the conditions that must be satisfied to obtain the grant of such protection (e.g., whether designs must be new or original and the parameters of these concepts), and a brief description of the registration or granting procedure; (c) the nature of the rights granted and the term of protection provided; (d) the nature of remedies available to the owner of each type of protection, including a description of the conditions that may be imposed (e.g., whether commercial use is required); and (e) whether any exceptions to protection or rights exist for each type of intellectual property involved.
(a) The main areas for protection of industrial designs are under the Designs Act 1953 and the Copyright Act 1994. Other forms of protection may be available in some circumstances, namely: - If the design is "functional" in shape, patent protection under the Patents Act 1953 may be available. - Some protection may be available under the Trade Marks Act 1953 as a "shape" may now be registered as a trademark. (b) The remaining sections of this question ((b) - (e)) will be answered with respect to the protection afforded by the Designs Act 1953 and the Copyright Act 1994 as they are the main vehicles affording protection for designs. To be registrable under the Designs Act 1953, an application for a design right must: - Show that the design fits within the definition of "design" under Section 2 of the Designs Act 1953, namely: "features of shape, configuration, pattern, or ornament applied to an article by any industrial process or means, being features which in the finished article appeal to and are judged solely by the eye; but does not include a method or principle of construction or features of shape and configuration which are dictated solely by the function which the article to be made in that shape or configuration has to perform." - State that it is "new or original" in the sense used in the Designs Act (Section 5(2)), namely that it is different from any other design that has been available to the New Zealand public before the priority date of the application. How much and in what ways the design has to be different, will be a matter of judgement in each case and will depend mainly on what type of article the design is to be applied to. However, generally, protection extends to a design to the extent that it meets the standard of originality. Consequently, any design "not substantially different" from the registered design will be deemed to infringe the copyright in the design. When design registration is applied for, the applicant must file a statement of novelty (apart from applications to register designs in respect of textile articles, wallpaper or lace). The applicant must decide in what features the novelty resides. If no specific features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornamentation are specified, then the scope of registration relates to the design as a whole. The Act makes provision for situations of confidential disclosure, where an application shall not be invalidated by reason only of that disclosure. - Ensure that the application fulfils all the formalities, namely: - the application form includes name, nationality and address of the applicant; - the application fee is paid; - the required number of representations are supplied (four) and the name of the article is correct; and - where appropriate, correct Convention documentation is supplied. Copyright protection for industrial designs under the Copyright Act 1994 has the following features: - copyright applies to original artistic works and works of artistic craftsmanship; and - copyright protection is free and automatic, i.e. there are no formalities attached. (c) The nature of the rights granted and period of protection provided under designs and copyright laws are similar. - Sections 11 and 12 of the Designs Act 1953 state the rights and duration of protection given by design registration, namely: - The registration of a design gives the registered proprietor copyright in the design, i.e., "the exclusive right in New Zealand to make or import for sale or for use for the purposes of any trade or business, or to sell, hire, or offer for sale or hire, any article to which the registered design or a design not substantially different from the registered design has been applied, and to make anything for enabling any such article to be made as aforesaid, whether in New Zealand or elsewhere." - Copyright in a registered design subsists for a period of five years from the date of registration. The Commissioner can then extend the period for a second period of five years from the expiration of the original period and for a third period of five years from the expiration of the second period, on application and on payment of the prescribed fee. - The Copyright Act 1994 provides that the owner of an artistic work has the exclusive right to do, inter alia, the following acts in New Zealand; copy; issue copies to the public; show works; and make adaptation of works (Section 16). Further, the Copyright Act 1994 provides that copyright in artistic works expires at the end of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies (Section 22) unless the artistic work is industrially applied (Section 75) in which case 16 years or 25 years applies. (d) New Zealand proposes to answer this question in its notification on enforcement. (e) There are no relevant exceptions to protection under the Copyright Act 1994. However, Regulation 33 of the Designs Regulations 1954 provides that some designs are excluded from protection under the Designs Act 1953. The excluded works are: "(a) Works of sculpture other than casts or models used or intended to be used as models or patterns to be multiplied by any industrial process; (b) Wall plaques and medals; (c) Printed matter primarily of a literary or artistic character, including bookjackets, calendars, certificates, coupons, dress-making patterns, greeting cards, leaflets, maps, plans, postcards, stamps, trade advertisements, trade forms, and cards, transfers, and the like."
19/01/1998
IP/Q2/NZL/1 Nouvelle-Zélande États-Unis d'Amérique 7. Please explain how textile designs are protected under your law.
Textile designs are protected under the Designs Act 1953. As noted above, design includes a requirement that a design fall within "features ... or ornament applied to an article by any industrial process or means". Textile articles are, therefore, registrable where the textile material is able to perform a function other than just being the vehicle for the imprint of the design. For example, if the subject of the application was wallpaper, it would need to be able to cover cracks in walls or enhance the decor of a room to be registrable. Protection is also available for textiles under the Copyright Act. Textiles may qualify either as an artistic work or as a special type of artistic work, i.e. a work of artistic craftsmanship.
19/01/1998
IP/Q2/NZL/1 Nouvelle-Zélande États-Unis d'Amérique 8. Please explain whether legal means are provided under New Zealand law to refuse or invalidate the registration of misleading geographical indications and, if not, how New Zealand law is consistent with Article 22.3 of the TRIPS Agreement.
New Zealand does provide for the above. New Zealand has implemented Article 22.3 of the TRIPS Agreement through Section 16(1) of the Trade Marks Act, Section 4(1) of the Geographical Indications Act and Section 9 of the Fair Trading Act. Section 16(1) of the Trade Marks Act provides: "(1) It shall not be lawful to register as a trade mark or part of a trade mark any scandalous matter or any matter the use of which would be likely to deceive or cause confusion or would be contrary to law or morality or would otherwise be disentitled to protection in a Court of Justice." Section 4(1) of the Geographical Indications Act provides that a person shall be deemed to have contravened Section 9 of the Fair Trading Act where that person: "... uses, in relation to any specified goods, a protected geographical indication and the goods did not originate in the geographical origin to which the protected geographical indication relates." Section 41 of the Trade Marks Act also provides for a general power to rectify entries on the Trade Marks Register. The Commissioner of Trade Marks will not register geographical indications as a trademark, where clearly a geographical indication is intended to be used in a misleading or deceptive manner or in a manner which would contravene Section 4(1) of the Geographical Indications Act. Section 35(1) of the Trade Marks Act is also relevant in that it provides for the removal from the Register of a trademark which has not been used for five years. It can be noted that all marks registered before the Geographical Indications Act comes into force will be "grand-parented" and will exist in the form they were accepted in, provided the mark was registered and used in good faith.
19/01/1998
IP/Q2/NZL/1 Nouvelle-Zélande États-Unis d'Amérique 9. Please explain how, in the absence of an unfair competition statute, New Zealand law complies with Article 22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, which requires that with respect to geographical indications legal means be provided to prevent any use which constitutes an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Article 10bis of the Paris Convention.
Article 22.2 of the TRIPS Agreement requires that legal means shall be provided for interested parties to prevent the false or misleading use of geographical indications and to prevent any use which constitutes an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Article 10bis of the Paris Convention (1967). The Geographical Indications Act provides that, if a person uses a protected geographical indication and the goods did not originate in the geographical origin to which the protected geographical indication relates, the person shall be deemed to have contravened Section 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986. The relevant provision in the Fair Trading Act states that no person shall, in trade, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive. Therefore, under the Geographical Indications Act, if someone is deemed to have contravened Section 9 of the Fair Trading Act, an interested party may apply to the High Court for an injunction restraining the offender from using the protected geographical indication in a misleading or deceptive manner. While geographical indications may be protected under the Geographical Indications Act, it is the Fair Trading Act which provides the legal means for interested parties to prevent the misleading or deceptive use of geographical indications or acts of unfair competition. It is useful to note that the Geographical Indications Act only protects those geographical indications which are registered under the Act. However, the Fair Trading Act can provide protection for geographical indications not registered under the Geographical Indications Act by prohibiting any false or misleading representations that goods are of a particular kind, standard, quality or any false or misleading representations concerning the place of origin of the goods. Again, the Fair Trading Act provides legal means for interested parties to take action in relation to any false or misleading use of geographical indications which are not protected under the Geographical Indications Act. The Fair Trading Act has been successfully used for this purpose in the past.
19/01/1998

Page 501 de 677   |   Nombre de documents : 13533

 
Réinitialiser