SCT/14/5: Summary of Replies to the Questionnaire on ...€¦ · Web viewAlgeria N/A Armenia Australia NO 3 months Austria N/A Bangladesh YES 2 months Belarus Brazil NO 4 years

WIPOE

SCT/14/5ORIGINAL: EnglishDATE: February 14, 2005

WORLD INTE LL ECTU AL PROPER TY ORGANIZAT IONGENEVA

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LAW OF TRADEMARKS,INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS

Fourteenth SessionGeneva, April 18 to 22, 2005

SUMMARY OF REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONNAIREON TRADEMARK LAW AND PRACTICE (SCT/11/6)

Document prepared by the Secretariat

SCT/14/5page 2

1 At its eighth session, held in Geneva from May 27 to 31, 2002, the Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT) considered issues relating to harmonization of substantive trademark law. The exchange of views that took place at that session was based on document SCT/8/3, which provided a preliminary indication of topics regarding substantive harmonization of trademark laws. Pursuant to a request of the SCT made at the conclusion of its eighth session, the Secretariat prepared a draft questionnaire on trademark law and practice (document SCT/9/3), for discussion at the ninth session which was held from November 11 to 15, 2002. At that session, the SCT decided that the International Bureau should circulate the draft questionnaire on the SCT Electronic Forum, inviting SCT members to provide comments by the end of January 2003. At the tenth session of the SCT (April 28 to May 2, 2003), the Secretariat was asked to revise and finalize the questionnaire as contained in document SCT/10/3 Prov. on the basis of the comments thus far received, and to circulate it for reply. The resulting final version of the questionnaire was issued as document SCT/11/6 and circulated on August 15, 2003, with a request for return by December 30, 2003.

2 The Secretariat has received replies from the following Member States: Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Morocco, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay and Zambia (72). The following intergovernmental organizations also replied to the questionnaire: the Benelux Trademark Office (BBM), the European Communities (EC) and the African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI) (3). Furthermore, replies to the questionnaire were received from a number of private organizations.

3 The questionnaire contained 369 questions on the trademark laws and administrative office practices of Member States. In respect of 251 questions a response was requested by checking the relevant box (YES / NO / N/A). The responses to the remaining 118 questions were requested in the form of a written explanation. The Secretariat compiled all the responses into the present summary document.

4 In the course of the preparation of this document the Secretariat examined some 22,000 responses received in five official languages (Arabic, English, French, Russian and Spanish). Out of those 22,000 replies, 17,821 correspond to the 251 questions in document SCT/11/6 to which a response had to be given by checking the relevant box (YES/ NO/ N/A). Those replies are reproduced completely in the present document in the form of tables. Some 4,200 replies relate to the 118 questions in document SCT/11/6 to which the response had to be textual. This document does not attempt to reproduce exactly all responses that were given in the text, but rather identifies general trends in respect of those replies. For the purpose of easy reading and understanding, the questions that require textual response are reproduced followed by a summary of replies received by the Secretariat under each table.

SCT/14/5page 3

5 It should be noted that the structure of the present document follows the structure of document SCT/11/6, and that the same numeration is applied. Furthermore, the format in which the replies are reproduced was chosen with a view to allowing the addition of further replies in case Member States wish to submit their replies at a later stage.

IMPORTANT NOTE

6 The information reproduced in this document was compiled on the basis of the replies which the Secretariat has received to the questionnaire contained in document SCT/11/6. They constitute information made available by participating States and organizations only for the purposes of identifying issues which could be addressed at the international level for the future development of international trademark law. The information contained in this document should not be taken to constitute a legally binding source of the applicable law in the States and organizations mentioned in this document, or as guidance to the interpretation of such laws.

SCT/14/5page 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. DEFINITION 6

II. REGISTRABLE SIGNS 10

1. Denominations, letters, numbers, etc. 102. Three-dimensional marks 153. Other non-traditional marks 224. Service marks 315. “Special” types of marks 33

III. APPLICATION PROCEDURE 39

IV. EXAMINATION PROCEDURE 48

1. Ex officio examination 482. Absolute grounds for refusal 523. Relative grounds for refusal (prior rights) 66

V. OPPOSITION PROCEEDINGS 79

1. Opposition systems 792. Opposition period 853. Publication 874. Entitlement to file an opposition 935. Possible grounds for opposition 956. Miscellaneous 113

VI. APPEALS 117

1. Appeal procedures 1172. Appeal period 1193. Entitlement to file an appeal 123

VII. UNREGISTERED MARKS (COMMON LAW MARKS) 126

1. Protection 1262. Protected subject matter 1303. Criteria for protection 1324. Infringement standards 1345. Penalties 134

SCT/14/5page 5

Page

VIII. USE OF A MARK 136

1. General use requirement 1362. What is considered as use? 1393. Period of use/non-use after registration 1444. Miscellaneous 147

IX. USE OF TRADEMARK SYMBOLS 150

X. CANCELLATION AND/OR INVALIDATION PROCEEDINGS 155

1. General 1552. Possible grounds for removal 1643. Miscellaneous 168

XI. RENEWAL OF REGISTRATION 171

XII. MAINTAINING THE REGISTER 180

XIII. TIME LIMITS FIXED BY THE OFFICE 183

SCT/14/5page 6

I. DEFINITION1. According to the applicable legislation or IP office practices, a mark is defined as:

Responding countries/Regional IP offices

A. Any sign or combination of signs, capable of distinguishing the goods or services of an undertaking from the goods or services of another undertaking

B. Signs visually perceptible

C. Signs capable of being represented graphically

D. Other

Algeria YES YES YES NOArmenia YES YES YES YESAustralia YES NO YESAustria YES YES YES NOBangladesh YES YES YES N/ABelarus YES YES YESBrazil YES YES NOBulgaria YES YES NOCanada YES YES YES NOChile YESChina YES N/A YESColombia YES NO YES N/ACosta Rica YESCroatia YES NO YES NOCzech Rep. YES NO NO YESDenmark YES N/A YES N/ADominicaEcuador YES YES YES YESEl Salvador YES YES NO NOEstonia NO NO YES NOFinland YES N/A YES N/AFrance YES NO YES NOGeorgia YES NO YES NOGermany YES NO YESHungary YES NO YES NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) YESIreland YES NO YES N/AItaly YES NO YES NOJamaica YES YES YES N/AJapan YES N/A YES N/AKyrgyzstan YES YES YES NOLithuania YES N/A YES N/AMadagascar YES YES NO YESMalta YESMauritius YES YES YESMexico YES YES YESMonaco YES YES YES NOMorocco YES YES YES NONew Zealand YES NO YES NONorway YES N/A YES N/AOman YES N/A N/APakistan YES NO YES YESPanama YESPeru YES YES YES YESPhilippines YES YES YES N/APortugal YES NO YES NORep. of Korea YES YES YES NORep. of Moldova YES YES YES NO

SCT/14/5page 7

I. DEFINITION1. According to the applicable legislation or IP office practices, a mark is defined as:


A. Any sign or combination of signs, capable of distinguishing the goods or services of an undertaking from the goods or services of another undertaking

B. Signs visually perceptible

C. Signs capable of being represented graphically

D. Other

Romania YES YESRussian Federation YES YES YES N/ASaint Lucia YES YES YES N/ASt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES N/A YES N/A

Singapore YES YES YES NOSlovakia YES NO YES NOSlovenia YES YESSpain YES YESSri Lanka YES YES N/A N/ASudan YES N/A N/A YESSwaziland YES N/A N/ASweden YES NO YES NOSwitzerland YES NO YES NOSyrian Arab Rep. YES YES YES NOThailand YES YES YES NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES NO YES NO

Trinidad & Tobago YES YES YESTunisia YES YES YES YESTurkey YES YES YES NOUkraine YES YES YESUnited Kingdom YES NO YES NOUSA YES NO NO YESUruguay YES NO YES YESZambia YESOAPI YES YES NOBBM YES NO YESEC YES NO YES NO

D. If YES, please explain:

Many replies emphasized that the mark had to be distinctive. Some listed what kind of registrable signs were accepted, for example, any word, name, symbol or device, or any combination thereof, used by a person to identify or distinguish his goods or services from the goods and services of others.

SCT/14/5page 8


I. DEFINITION2. Does the applicable legislation provide for any specific signs to be excluded from registration as a mark?

Algeria NOArmenia YESAustralia YESAustria NOBangladesh YESBelarus YESBrazil NOBulgaria NOCanada YESChile YESChina NOColombia YESCosta Rica YESCroatia NOCzech Rep. NODenmark YESDominicaEcuador YESEl Salvador YESEstonia YESFinland NOFrance NOGeorgia NOGermany YESHungary YESIran (Islamic Rep. of) NOIreland YESItaly NOJamaica NOJapan YESKyrgyzstan YESLithuania YESMadagascar YESMalta NOMauritius YESMexico YESMonaco YESMorocco YESNew Zealand YESNorway NOOman YESPakistan YESPanama NOPeru NOPhilippines YES

SCT/14/5page 9


I. DEFINITION2. Does the applicable legislation provide for any specific signs to be excluded from registration as a mark?

Portugal NORep. of Korea NORep. of Moldova YESRomania NORussian Federation NOSaint Lucia YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines YESSingapore YESSlovakia YESSlovenia YESSpain NOSri Lanka YESSudan YESSwaziland NOSweden NOSwitzerland NOSyrian Arab Rep. NOThailand YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES

Trinidad & Tobago YESTunisia YESTurkey NOUkraine NOUnited Kingdom YESUSA YESUruguay YESZambia YESOAPI YESBBM NOEC NO

Please explain:

Some replies mentioned sound marks, smell marks and holograms. In other replies signs indicating existence of intellectual property rights, e.g., “registered as being excluded from registration” were excluded from registration. Also some terms such as “olympic”, “national”, special protected emblems such as “royal crown”, national governmental emblems, emblems of other States and of intergovernmental organizations, as well as the olympic symbols and the emblem of the Red Cross, were excluded from registration. In a small number of replies it was indicated that three-dimensional marks and combinations of colors could not be registered as marks. Finally a number of respondents stated that marks of a functional nature could not be registered.

3. Are any specific signs excluded from the registration on the basis of the case law in your jurisdiction?

SCT/14/5page 10

Some replies mentioned olfactory trademarks, which could not be represented graphically. One reply indicated that famous marks recognized as such by court decisions, could not be registered by third parties.

II. REGISTRABLE SIGNSCan the following signs be registered as marks under the applicable legislation or under IP office practices:

1. Denominations, letters, numbers, etc.


A. Words in foreign languages

B. Words in foreign scripts

C. Personal names

D. Names of famous people

Algeria YES YES YES YESArmenia YES YES YES YESAustralia YES YES YES YESAustria YES YES YES YESBangladesh YES YES YES YESBelarus YES YES YES YESBrazil YES YES YES YESBulgaria YES YES YES YESCanada YES YES YES YESChile YES NO YES NOChina YES YES YES YESColombia YES YES YES YESCosta Rica YES YES YES NOCroatia YES YES YES YESCzech Rep. YES YES YES YESDenmark YES YES YES YESDominicaEcuador YES YES YES YESEl Salvador YES YES YES YESEstonia YES YES YES YESFinland YES YES YES YESFrance YES YES YES YESGeorgia YES YES YES YESGermany YES YES YES YESHungary YES YES YES YESIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YES YES NOIreland YES YES YES YESItaly YES YES YES YESJamaica YES YES YES YESJapan YES YES YES YESKyrgyzstan YES YES YES YESLithuania YES YES YES YESMadagascar YES YES YES YESMalta YES YES YESMauritius YES YES YES YESMexico YES YES YES YESMonaco YES YES YES YESMorocco YES YES NO NONew Zealand YES YES YES YESNorway YES YES YES YESOman YES YES YES YESPakistan YES YES YES YESPanama YES YES YES YESPeru YES YES YES YESPhilippines YES YES NO NOPortugal YES YES YES YES

SCT/14/5page 11




A. Words in foreign languages

B. Words in foreign scripts

C. Personal names

D. Names of famous people

Rep. of Korea YES YES YES YESRep. of Moldova YES YES YES YESRomania YES YES YES YESRussian Federation YES YES YES YESSaint Lucia YES YES YES YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES YES YES YES

Singapore YES YES YES YESSlovakia YES YES YES YESSlovenia YES YES YES YESSpain YES YES YES YESSri Lanka YES YES YES YESSudan YES YES YES YESSwaziland N/A N/A N/A N/ASweden YES YES YESSwitzerland YES YES YES YESSyrian Arab Rep. YES YES YES NOThailand YES YES YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES YES YES YES

Trinidad & Tobago YES YES YES NOTunisia YES YES YES NOTurkey YES YES YES YESUkraine YES YES YES YESUnited Kingdom YES YES YES YESUSA YES YES YES YESUruguay YES YES YES YESZambia YES YES YESOAPI YES YES YES YESBBM YES YES YES YESEC YES YES YES YES

A. If YES, please explain if there are any special registration requirements (such as translation):

The requirement of a translation of a trademark that consisted of words in foreign languages was mentioned in 37 replies. Many replies indicated that even if a translation was not required it was recommended. One reply stated that an application for a mark in a foreign language should be combined with the authorization for export of the goods concerned.

B. If YES, please explain if there are any special registration requirements (such as transliteration request):

The requirement of a transliteration of a trademark that consisted of words in foreign script was mentioned in 30 replies. Even though a transliteration was not required it was generally recommended. Some replies pointed out that if a mark was registered without a transliteration or a translation being presented, it was considered as a figurative mark.

SCT/14/5page 12

D. If YES, please explain if there are any special registration requirements:

In the majority of the replies it was stated that consent from the famous person was required. Some replies pointed out that the registration of names of religious, tribal or political figures were against public order. Historical or cultural figures could not be registered in some countries (such as Beethoven or Mozart for CDs in class 9 of the Nice classification).

SCT/14/5page 13

II. REGISTRABLE SIGNSCan the following signs be registered as marks under the applicable legislation or under IP Office practices:



E. Letters F. Numbers G. Punctuation marks

Algeria YES YES NOArmenia NO NO NOAustralia YES YES YESAustria YES YES YESBangladesh YES YESBelarus YES YES NOBrazil YES YES YESBulgaria YES YES NOCanada YES YES YESChile YES YES NOChina YES YES YESColombia YES YES YESCosta Rica YES YES YESCroatia YES YES YESCzech Rep. YES YES YESDenmark YES YESDominicaEcuador YES YES YESEl Salvador YES YES NOEstonia YES YES YESFinland YES YES YESFrance YES YES YESGeorgia YES YES N/AGermany YES YES NOHungary YES YES YESIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YES YESIreland YES YES N/AItaly YES YES YESJamaica YES YES NOJapan YES YES YESKyrgyzstan YES YES NOLithuania YES YES N/AMadagascar YES YES YESMalta YES YES YESMauritius YES YES YESMexico YES YES YESMonaco YES YES NOMorocco YES YES NONew Zealand YES YES YESNorway YES YESOman YES YESPakistan YES YESPanama YES YES NOPeru YES YES YESPhilippines YES YES YESPortugal YES YES YESRep. of Korea YES YES NORep. of Moldova YES YES NORomania YES YES NO

SCT/14/5page 14

II. REGISTRABLE SIGNSCan the following signs be registered as marks under the applicable legislation or under IP Office practices:



E. Letters F. Numbers G. Punctuation marks

Russian Federation YES YES NOSaint Lucia YES YES YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES YES YES

Singapore YES YESSlovakia YES YES NOSlovenia YES YES YESSpain YES YES NOSri Lanka YES YES YESSudan YES YES N/ASwaziland YES N/A N/ASweden YES YESSwitzerland YES YES YESSyrian Arab Rep. YES YES YESThailand YES YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES YES YES

Trinidad & Tobago YES YES NOTunisia YES YES YESTurkey YES YES YESUkraine YES YES N/AUnited Kingdom YES YES YESUSA YES YES YESUruguay YES YES YESZambia YES YES NOOAPI YES YESBBM YES YES YESEC YES YES YES

E. If YES, please explain if there are any special registration requirements:

Most of the replies emphasized that a mark had to be distinctive. The general approach was that single letter or two-letter combinations, which were not presented in a distinctive way, were not registrable. However, evidence of use might make them registrable. Also, disclaimers might be required in respect of non-distinctive elements of the mark.

F. If YES, please explain if there are any special registration requirements:

See replies to the question 1.E.

G. If YES, please explain if there are any special registration requirements:

See replies to the question 1.E. One reply pointed out that punctuation marks were registrable as position marks. Such marks might be figurative or three-dimensional and they had to comply with the corresponding registration requirements. Also a description of the position of the sign should be submitted.

SCT/14/5page 15


2. Three-dimensional marks


A. Product packaging

B. Tradedress C. Product shape D. Others

Algeria YES YES YES NOArmenia YES YES YES NOAustralia YES YES YES N/AAustria YES YES YES YESBangladeshBelarus YES YES NOBrazil YES NO YES YESBulgaria YES NO YES NOCanada YES YES YES N/AChile NO NO NO NOChina YES YES YESColombia YES YES YES NOCosta Rica YES YES NO NOCroatia YES YES YES NOCzech Rep. YES YES YES YESDenmark YES YES YES N/ADominicaEcuador YES YES YES NOEl Salvador YES YES YESEstonia YES YES NOFinland YES YES YESFrance YES YES YES YESGeorgia YES YES YES YESGermany YES N/A YESHungary YES YES YES YESIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YES YESIreland YES YES NO NOItaly YES YES YES NOJamaica YES N/A YES NOJapan YES N/A YES YESKyrgyzstan YES YES YES N/ALithuania YES N/A YES N/AMadagascar YES NO YES NOMalta YES YES YESMauritiusMexico YES YES YES NOMonaco YES YES YES NOMorocco YES YES YES N/ANew Zealand YES YES YES N/ANorway YES YES YESOman YES YES YES N/APakistan YES YES YES N/APanama YES YES YESPeru YES YES YES YESPhilippines YES N/A NO N/APortugal YES YES NO YESRep. of Korea YES NO YES N/ARep. of Moldova YES YES NO YES

SCT/14/5page 16


2. Three-dimensional marks


A. Product packaging

B. Tradedress C. Product shape D. Others

Romania YES YES NORussian Federation YES YES YES N/ASaint Lucia YES YES YES NOSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES NO YES N/A

Singapore YES YES YES NOSlovakia NO NO YES NOSlovenia YES NO YESSpain YES YES YESSri Lanka YES YES YES YESSudan YES N/A N/ASwaziland N/A N/A YESSweden YES YES YES N/ASwitzerland YES YES YES NOSyrian Arab Rep. YES YES NOThailand NO NO NO YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES YES YES NO

Trinidad & Tobago YES NO YES NOTunisia YES YES YES NOTurkey YES YES NO NOUkraine YES YES NO NOUnited Kingdom YES YES YES YESUSA YES YES YES N/AUruguay YES YES YESZambia NO NO NO NOOAPI YES YESBBM YES YES YESEC YES N/A YES YES

B. If YES, please explain what are the applicable legal and administrative requirements:

Graphic representation, such as drawings, views or photographs showing each feature, was generally required. As endorsement on the registration a description of a trademark might be required. In one reply it was stated that a three-dimensional mark might comprise other elements such as figurative or word elements, colors or labels. This was referred to as “get up” but not as “tradedress”. The distinctiveness of such composite signs would be considered for the mark as a whole.

D. If YES, please list them and explain how they are represented graphically in the application and explain if there are any technical requirements:

Most replies indicated that a mark had to be distinctive and capable of being represented graphically. According to the case law in one country the form which characterizes a service could also be registered as a mark. Some pointed out that shapes unrelated to the product (e.g. the Mercedes star), the shape of the product itself, the shape of the packaging of the goods (containers, bottles) might be registrable.

SCT/14/5page 17

II. REGISTRABLE SIGNS2. Three-dimensional marks

E. According to the legislation of your country, what are the absolute grounds for refusal of a three-dimensional mark?


(i) The shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves

(ii) The shape which is necessary to obtain a technicalresult

(iii) The shape determined by its function (as opposed to (ii))

(iv) Other grounds

Algeria YES YESArmenia YES YES YES NOAustralia NO NO NO N/AAustria YES YES YES YESBangladeshBelarus YES YES YESBrazil YES YES YES YESBulgaria YES YES YES NOCanada YES YES YES YESChileChina YES YES YES YESColombia YES YES YES NOCosta Rica YES NO NO NOCroatia YES YES NO YESCzech Rep. YES YES YES YESDenmarkDominicaEcuador YES YES YES NOEl Salvador YES YES YES YESEstonia YES YES YES YESFinland YES YES YESFrance YES YES YES YESGeorgia YES YES N/A NOGermany YES YES YES YESHungary YES YES NO YESIran (Islamic Rep. of)Ireland YES YES YES YESItaly YES YES YES NOJamaica YES YES YES N/AJapan YES YES YES YESKyrgyzstan N/A N/A N/A N/ALithuania YES YES NO N/AMadagascar YES NO YES NOMalta YES YES NO YESMauritiusMexico YES YES YES YESMonaco NO NO NO YESMorocco NO YES YES N/ANew Zealand NO NO NO N/ANorwayOman YES YES YES N/APakistan YES YES NO YESPanama YES YES YESPeru YES YES YES YESPhilippines YES YES YES N/A

SCT/14/5page 18


E. According to the legislation of your country, what are the absolute grounds for refusal of a three-dimensional mark?


(i) The shape which results from the nature of the goods themselves

(ii) The shape which is necessary to obtain a technicalresult

(iii) The shape determined by its function (as opposed to (ii))

(iv) Other grounds

Portugal YES YES YES YESRep. of Korea YES YES NO YESRep. of Moldova YES YES YES YESRomania YES YES NO YESRussian Federation YES N/A NOSaint Lucia NO NO NO NOSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

N/A N/A N/A N/A

SingaporeSlovakia YES YES YES NOSlovenia YES YES NO NOSpain YES YES YESSri Lanka YES YES YES YESSudan YES N/A N/A NOSwaziland N/A NO N/A N/ASwedenSwitzerland YES YES NO YESSyrian Arab Rep. YES YES YES YESThailand YES YES YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES YES NO YES

Trinidad & Tobago YES YES NO YESTunisia YES YES YES YESTurkey YES YES NO NOUkraine YES YES YES YESUnited Kingdom YES YES NO YESUSA YES YES YES YESUruguay YES YES YESZambia N/A N/A N/A N/AOAPIBBM YES YES YES YESEC YES YES NO YES

E(iv) If YES, please explain:

The replies listed, among others, the shape that gave substantial value to the goods, shapes contrary to morality or public order, shapes not capable of distinguishing and the common or usual shape of a product or a packaging.

SCT/14/5page 19



F. If a three-dimensional mark is refused, can the holder convincingly prove that his/her sign has acquired a distinctive character through use?

G. If three-dimensional marks are protected in your country, has their introduction affected the volume of design registrations?

Algeria NO NOArmenia NO YESAustralia YES NOAustria YES NOBangladeshBelarus YES YESBrazil YES NOBulgaria YES NOCanada NO NOChileChina NOColombia YES NOCosta Rica YES NOCroatia YES NOCzech Rep. YES N/ADenmarkDominicaEcuador NO YESEl Salvador NO N/AEstonia YES N/AFinland YES NOFrance YES NOGeorgia NO NOGermany YES YESHungary NO NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES NOIreland N/A NOItaly NO NOJamaica YES YESJapan YES NOKyrgyzstan YES NOLithuania NO NOMadagascar NO NOMalta N/A NOMauritiusMexico NO N/AMonaco YES YESMorocco N/A NONew Zealand YES NONorwayOman YES N/APakistan YES N/APanama YES YESPeru YES NOPhilippines YES YESPortugal NO NORep. of Korea YES N/A

SCT/14/5page 20



F. If a three-dimensional mark is refused, can the holder convincingly prove that his/her sign has acquired a distinctive character through use?

G. If three-dimensional marks are protected in your country, has their introduction affected the volume of design registrations?

Rep. of Moldova YES NORomania YESRussian Federation YES NOSaint Lucia YES NOSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES

SingaporeSlovakiaSlovenia NO NOSpain YES N/ASri Lanka YES NOSudan N/A NOSwaziland YES N/ASwedenSwitzerland YES NOSyrian Arab Rep. YES NOThailand YES N/AThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES NO

Trinidad & Tobago YES NOTunisia YES NOTurkey YES NOUkraine YES NOUnited Kingdom YES NOUSA YES N/AUruguay NO NOZambia NOOAPIBBM YES N/AEC YES N/A

F. If YES, please explain by which means the distinctive character could be proved (filing evidence of use, opinion surveys etc.):

A few replies pointed out that evidence of acquired distinctiveness could overcome an objection of devoid of distinctive character but not an objection referred to in questions E(i) to (iii). Some stated that all kinds of evidence might be taken into consideration, among others, invoices, delivery slips, order slips, bills, receipts, account books, pamphlets, printed matters (newspaper clippings, magazines, catalogues, leaflets) carrying advertisement, publicity, photograph showing the use of a trademark, a certificate issued by an advertisement agency, broadcasting agency, publisher or printer, certificate issued by a trade association or fellow traders, a certificate issued by a customer of goods or services or an agent, a certificate issued by a consumer, a certificate issued by a public organization (government authorities, local public bodies, foreign embassy, a chamber of commerce and industry). Generally distinctive character and evidence of use might be proven if sufficient evidence was provided, i.e., opinion surveys. One reply pointed out that if a three-dimensional mark was treated as

SCT/14/5page 21

product packaging it might be protected as inherently distinctive without proof of acquired distinctiveness. In the case it was a product shape, then it could only be protected upon proof that it had acquired distinctiveness through use.

If YES, what are the criteria to determine the distinctive character of the shape of a product?

Many replies indicated that the affected trade circles must consider the shape as such as an indication of the origin and the shape as such must have the required degree of recognition. The results of opinion surveys played an important role in determining whether a mark had become distinctive.

SCT/14/5page 22


3. Other non-traditional marks


A. Color marks B. Sound marks

(i) Single color

(ii) Combination of colors

(iii) Single color or combination of colors associated with other signs

(i) Musicalsounds

(ii) Othersounds

Algeria YES YES YES NO NOArmenia NO YES YES YES YESAustralia YES YES YES YES YESAustria YES YES YES YES YESBangladesh YES YES YES NO NOBelarus YES YES YES NO NOBrazil NO YES YES NO NOBulgaria NO YES YES YES NOCanada YES YES YES NO NOChile NO NO NO NO NOChina NO YES YES YESColombia NO YES YES YES YESCosta Rica NO NO YES YES YESCroatia YES YES YES NO NOCzech Rep. YES YES YES NO NODenmark N/A YES YES YES YESDominicaEcuador YES YES YES YES YESEl Salvador NO YES YES NO NOEstonia NO YES YES NO NOFinland YES YES YES YESFrance YES YES YES YES YESGeorgia NO YES YES YES YESGermany YES YES YES YES YESHungary YES YES YES YES N/AIran (Islamic Rep. of) NO NO YES NO NOIreland YES YES YES YES YESItaly YES YES YES YES YESJamaica YES YES YES YES YESJapan NO YES YES NO NOKyrgyzstan N/A YES YES NO NOLithuania NO YES YES YES YESMadagascar YES YES YES NO NOMalta YES YES YES NO NOMauritius YES YES YES YES NOMexico NO YES NO NO NOMonaco YES YES YES NO NOMorocco YES YES NO NONew Zealand YES YES YES YES YESNorway YES YES YES YES YESOman YES YES YES NO NOPakistan YES YES YES YES YESPanama NO YES YES NO NO

SCT/14/5page 23




A. Color marks B. Sound marks

(i) Single color

(ii) Combination of colors

(iii) Single color or combination of colors associated with other signs

(i) Musicalsounds

(ii) Othersounds

Peru NO YES YES YES YESPhilippines YES YES YES NO NOPortugal NO YES YES YES NORep. of Korea NO NO YES NO NORep. of Moldova NO YES YES NO NORomania NO YES YESRussian Federation YES YES N/A YES YESSaint Lucia YES YES YES NO NOSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

NO YES YES YES N/A

Singapore YES YES YES NO NOSlovakia NO YES YES NO NOSlovenia YES YES N/A N/A N/ASpain YES YES YES YESSri Lanka NO YES YES NO NOSudan YES YES YES N/A N/ASwaziland YES YES YES N/A N/ASweden YES YES YES YES YESSwitzerland YES YES YES YES YESSyrian Arab Rep. NO YES YES NO NOThailand NO YES YES NO NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

NO YES YES NO NO

Trinidad & Tobago YES YES YES NO NOTunisia YES YES YES YES NOTurkey NO YES YES NO NOUkraine YES YES YES YES YESUnited Kingdom YES YES YES YES YESUSA YES YES YES YES YESUruguay NO YES YES YES YESZambia NO NO YES NO NOOAPI YES YES YES NO NOBBM YES YES YES NO NOEC YES YES YES YES YES

A. If YES, please explain how the color or combination of colors are represented in the application:

Where a color or colors were claimed as element(s) of a trademark, most replies indicated that an application must include a description in words of the color(s) concerned. It must also include a representation of the mark in the particular color(s) claimed. Applicant might define color(s) using any recognized color matching system. Some replies stated that color alone marks might be registered as long as they were defined by a given

SCT/14/5page 24

form or in association with other signs. Proof that a sign had acquired a distinctive character through use was generally demanded. A few replies referred to a court decision, according to which color alone marks must be described by reference to an international color code (e.g., PANTONE®).

B(ii) If YES, please list them and explain how they are represented in the application, whether graphically or by other means:

The majority said that a sound had to be represented graphically, such as musical notations or words. Cassettes and CDs might also be provided. In one reply low of a cow and sound of an automobile horn were mentioned, provided that these sounds had distinctive features. The application must, in that case, include the characteristics of sound or the diagram of frequencies, with the soundtrack registered on an audiocassette.

SCT/14/5page 25




C. Olfactory marks D. Holograms E. Slogans

Algeria NO NO YESArmenia NO NO YESAustralia YES YES YESAustria NO YES YESBangladesh NO NO YESBelarus NO NO YESBrazil NO NO NOBulgaria NO NO YESCanada NO NO YESChile NO NO YESChina YES NO NOColombia YES YES YESCosta Rica YES N/A YESCroatia NO NO YESCzech Rep. NO N/A YESDenmark NO YES YESDominicaEcuador YES YES YESEl Salvador NO YES YESEstonia NO YES YESFinland YES YES YESFrance YES YES YESGeorgia N/A N/A YESGermany NO YES YESHungary NO YES YESIran (Islamic Rep. of) NO NO YESIreland YES YES YESItaly YES YES YESJamaica YES N/A YESJapan NO NO NOKyrgyzstan NO YES YESLithuania YES YES YESMadagascar NO NO YESMalta NO NO YESMauritius NO YESMexico NO NO YESMonaco NO NO YESMorocco NO YES YESNew Zealand YES YES YESNorway YES YES YESOmanPakistan NO YES YESPanama NO YES YESPeru YES YES YESPhilippines NO YES YESPortugal NO NO YESRep. of Korea NO NO NORep. of Moldova NO N/A YES

SCT/14/5page 26




C. Olfactory marks D. Holograms E. Slogans

Romania NO YES YESRussian Federation YES NO YESSaint Lucia NO N/A YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

NO NO YES

Singapore NO YES YESSlovakia NO NO YESSlovenia N/A YES YESSpain NO YESSri Lanka NO NO YESSudanSwaziland N/A N/A N/ASweden YES YES YESSwitzerland YES YES YESSyrian Arab Rep.Thailand NO NO YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

NO NO YES

Trinidad & Tobago NO NO YESTunisiaTurkey NO NO YESUkraine NO NO YESUnited Kingdom YES NO YESUSA YES YES YESUruguay NO NO YESZambia NO NO YESOAPI NO NO YESBBM NO YES YESEC NO YES YES

C. If YES, explain how they are represented in the application, whether graphically or by other means:

Many replies indicated that the offices had not yet received any applications containing olfactory marks but, in principle, olfactory marks had to be represented graphically and contain a description of the composition and elements. However, many replies stated that for the time being, no means of satisfactory graphical presentation existed. A few replies mentioned a court decision according to which a chemical formula, description in words, deposit or a combination of them was all held to be insufficient.

SCT/14/5page 27

D. If YES, explain how they are represented in the application, whether graphically or by other means:

Most replies indicated that the different views of the representation of a mark might be represented graphically. It was explained that taking a photocopy of a hologram would reveal the selection of pictures contained in a hologram. A hologram could therefore be represented graphically by a photocopy. Some replies stated that a selection of pictures revealing the whole of the holographic effect was required, and also an additional explanation of the effect in plain words.

SCT/14/5page 28




F. Movie/book titles

G. Motion or multimediasigns

H. Others I. Do the same examiners examine non-traditional and traditional marks?

J. Is there any special training given to those who examine non-traditional marks?

Algeria YES NO NO YES NOArmenia N/A NO N/A YES NOAustralia YES YES YES YESAustria YES NO NO YES NOBangladesh YES YES YES YES NOBelarus YES NO NO YES NOBrazil YES NO NO YES NOBulgaria NO NO NO YES NOCanada YES NO N/A NO YESChile YES NO YESChina YES NO YES YESColombia YES YES NO YES NOCosta Rica YES NO YES NOCroatia YES NO NO N/A N/ACzech Rep. YES NO NO YES NODenmark YES YES N/A YES NODominicaEcuador YES YES YES YES NOEl Salvador YES YES NO YES NOEstonia YES NO NO YES NOFinland YES YES YES NOFrance YES NO N/A YES NOGeorgia N/A N/A NO YES NOGermany YES YES YES YES NOHungary YES NO N/A YES NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES NO YES NOIreland YES YES YES N/AItaly YES NO NO YES NOJamaica YES N/A N/A YES NOJapan YES NO NO YES NOKyrgyzstan YES NO NO YES NOLithuania N/A N/A NO YES NOMadagascar YES NO NO YES NOMalta NO NO NO YES NOMauritius YES YES YES NOMexico YES NO NO YES YESMonaco YES NO YES YES NOMorocco YES NO N/A NO NONew Zealand YES YES YES YES NONorway YES YES N/A YES NOOman YES N/A N/A YES N/APakistan YES NOPanama YES YES NO YES NOPeru YES N/A YES YES NOPhilippines YES N/A N/AS YES NO

SCT/14/5page 29




F. Movie/book titles

G. Motion or multimediasigns

H. Others I. Do the same examiners examine non-traditional and traditional marks?

J. Is there any special training given to those who examine non-traditional marks?

Portugal YES NO NO YES NORep. of Korea YES NO NO YES NORep. of Moldova YES NO NO YES NORomania YES NO YES NORussian Federation YES YES YES YES NOSaint Lucia YES NO NO YES YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES YES NO NO NO

Singapore YES YES N/A YES YESSlovakia YES NO NO YES NOSlovenia YES NO NO YES NOSpain NO YESSri Lanka YES NO NO YES NOSudan YES NO NO YES YESSwaziland N/A N/A N/A YES NPSweden YES YES N/A YES NOSwitzerland YES YES YES YES YESSyrian Arab Rep. NO NO NO YES NOThailand YES NO NO YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES NO NO YES NO

Trinidad & Tobago NO NO NO NOTunisia NO NO NO YES NOTurkey YES NO NO YES NOUkraine YES NO YES YES NOUnited Kingdom YES YES YES YES NOUSA YES YES N/A YES YESUruguay YES YES NOZambia NO NO NO YES NOOAPI YES NO NO YES NOBBM YES N/A YES NOEC YES YES YES YES NO

F. If YES, please explain if there are any special requirements:

Registration was generally allowed if an authorization to register, granted by the owner of the rights over the title, was presented. In many replies it was emphasized that the movie/book titles should not be against good manners.

G. If YES, please explain how they are represented graphically:

Some replies specified that all the stills that made up the multimedia effect, or a selection of samples sufficient to fully represent or reveal the distinctiveness of the multimedia effect, and an additional explanation of the effect in plain words must be submitted. It was generally required that an applicant file a sample of the full motion

SCT/14/5page 30

effect/multimedia sign on a digital data carrier in a data format chosen/accepted by the office, typically on a CD-ROM or a DVD.

H. If YES, please list them and explain how they are represented graphically, such as position marks:

One reply indicated that one touch mark had been accepted in embossed printing (braille). In another reply taste marks were mentioned, specified by written descriptions. In a third reply light signs were indicated. In that case an application had to include the characteristics of light symbols or signals, their sequence, duration of the luminescence and other features.

I. If NO, please explain:

In one reply it was explained that sound marks were examined by a single examiner and in another reply that special examiners examined color and scent marks.

J. If YES, please explain what kind of training:

Internal training at the office and WIPO’s training sessions were mentioned.

SCT/14/5page 31

II. REGISTRABLE SIGNS4. Service Marks


4. Are service marks protected? 4A Are marks for retail services protected?

Algeria YES YESArmenia YES YESAustralia YES YESAustria YES NOBangladesh NO NOBelarus YES YESBrazil YES YESBulgaria YES NOCanada YESChile YES YESChina YES YESColombia YES YESCosta Rica YES YESCroatia YES YESCzech Rep. YES YESDenmark YES YESDominicaEcuador YES YESEl Salvador YESEstonia YES YESFinland YES YESFrance YES NOGeorgia YES YESGermany YES NOHungary YES YESIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YESIreland YES YESItaly YES NOJamaica YES YESJapan YES NOKyrgyzstan YES YESLithuania YES YESMadagascar YES YESMalta YES YESMauritius YES YESMexico YES YESMonaco YES N/AMorocco YES NONew Zealand YES YESNorway YES YESOman YES YESPakistanPanama YES YESPeru NOPhilippines YESPortugal YES YESRep. of Korea YES NORep. of Moldova YES YESRomania YES YESRussian Federation YES YES

SCT/14/5page 32

II. REGISTRABLE SIGNS4. Service Marks


4. Are service marks protected? 4A Are marks for retail services protected?

Saint Lucia YES YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES NO

Singapore YES YESSlovakia YES YESSlovenia YES NOSpain YES YESSri Lanka YES YESSudan YES YESSwaziland YES YESSweden YES YESSwitzerland YES YESSyrian Arab Rep. YES YESThailand YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES

Trinidad & Tobago YES YESTunisia YES YESTurkey YES YESUkraine YES YESUnited Kingdom YES YESUSA YES YESUruguayZambia YES NOOAPI YES YESBBM YES YESEC YES YES

4A. If YES, are they protected in a special class (class 35) or as such?

The majority of the replies stated that marks for retail services were protected in class 35. Some pointed out that the goods and/or services being sold and the mode of sale, e.g. shop, Internet, must be defined.

SCT/14/5page 33

II. REGISTRABLE SIGNS5. Special types of marks


A. Defensivemarks

B. Associatedmarks

C. A series of marks

D. Collective marks

Algeria YES YES NO YESArmenia NO NO NO YESAustralia YES YES YES YESAustria NO NO NO YESBangladesh YES YES YES NOBelarus NO NO NO YESBrazil NO NO NO YESBulgaria NO NO NO YESCanada NO YES NO YESChile NO NO NO NOChina YES YES YES YESColombia NO NO NO YESCosta Rica NO NO NO YESCroatia NO NO NO YESCzech Rep. NO NO NO YESDenmark N/A N/A NO YESDominicaEcuador NO NO YESEl Salvador N/A N/A N/A YESEstonia NO NO NO YESFinland N/A N/A N/A YESFrance YES N/A N/A YESGeorgia N/A N/A N/A YESGermany N/A N/A YES YESHungary NO NO NO YESIran (Islamic Rep. of) NO NO YES YESIreland YES YESItaly NO NO NO YESJamaica NO YES YESJapan YES NO NO YESKyrgyzstan YES YES YES YESLithuania NO NO NO YESMadagascar NO NO NO YESMalta NO NO NO YESMauritius NO NO NO YESMexico NO NO NO YESMonaco N/A/ YES NO YESMorocco YES YES YES YESNew Zealand NO NO YES YESNorway YES N/A NO YESOman N/A N/A YES N/APakistan YES NO YES YESPanama N/A N/A YESPeru NO NO NO NOPhilippines NO YES N/A YESPortugal NO NO NO YESRep. of Korea NO NO NO YESRep. of Moldova NO NO N/A YESRomania NO NO NO YESRussian Federation NO NO NO YES

SCT/14/5page 34



A. Defensivemarks

B. Associatedmarks

C. A series of marks

D. Collective marks

Saint Lucia YES NO YES YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES NO YES YES

Singapore NO NO YES YESSlovakia YES YES YES YESSlovenia NO NO NO YESSpain NO NO NO YESSri Lanka NO YES NO YESSudan N/A N/A YES N/ASwaziland N/A N/A YES N/ASweden YES YES YES YESSwitzerland YES NO YES YESSyrian Arab Rep. NO YESThailand NO YES NO NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

NO NO NO YES

Trinidad & Tobago NO YES NOTunisia YES YES YES YESTurkey NO NO NO YESUkraine NO NO NO YESUnited Kingdom NO NO YES YESUSA NO NO NO YESUruguay N/A N/A N/A YESZambia YES YES YES N/AOAPI YES YESBBM N/A N/A NO YESEC NO NO NO YES

A. If YES, please explain how they are defined and specify any special requirements:

According to some replies national laws stipulated defensive marks while others stated that they were recognized by the office practices. There was a wide divergence as regards the definitions and requirements.

B. If YES, please explain how they are defined and specify any special requirements:

See the reply to question 5A.

C. If YES, please explain how they are defined and specify any special requirements:

In many replies series of marks were defined as a number of trade marks which resembled each other as to their material particulars and differed only as to matters of a non-distinctive character not substantially affecting the identity of the trademark. In some replies were mentioned requirements, such as one applicant, one receiving date, and one leading class.

SCT/14/5page 35

D. If YES, please explain how they are defined and the particular requirements (such as regulations for use or minimum content of regulations):

On the basis of the replies, it appeared that there existed two types of collective marks, namely association marks and certification marks. Sometimes a collective mark was the same as an association mark, a specific sign which belongs to an association of enterprises and which was used or intended to be used by its members for goods and services. Generally the regulations for use were required and the list of names of the persons authorized to use the mark. Also the statutes and possible sanctions in case of an unauthorized use were demanded. The collective marks were examined on the same basis as regular trademarks, e.g., they had to be capable of distinguishing. As regards certification marks, see the reply to question 5E.

SCT/14/5page 36



E. Certification marks F. Guarantee marks G. Others

Algeria YES NOArmenia NO NOAustralia YES NO N/AAustria NO NO NOBangladesh YESBelarus NO NO NOBrazil YES NO NOBulgaria YES NO NOCanada YES NO N/AChile NO NO NOChina YES NO NOColombia YES NO NOCosta Rica YES NO YESCroatia NO YES NOCzech Rep. NO NO NODenmark YES N/ADominicaEcuador YES NO NOEl Salvador NO NO NOEstonia N/A N/A NOFinland YES N/AFrance YES NO NOGeorgia NO NO NOGermany YES YESHungary YES NO NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YESIreland YES NO N/AItaly NO NO NOJamaica YES NO N/AJapan NO NO NOKyrgyzstan NO NO NOLithuania NO NO NOMadagascar NO NO NOMalta YES NO NOMauritius NO NOMexico NO NO NOMonaco YES N/A NOMorocco YES NONew Zealand YES NO N/ANorway YES N/AOman N/A N/APakistan YES NOPanama YES YES NOPeru NO NOPhilippines NO NO N/APortugal YES NO NORep. of Korea NO NO YESRep. of Moldova YES YES NORomania YES NO NORussian Federation NO NO NO

SCT/14/5page 37



E. Certification marks F. Guarantee marks G. Others

Saint Lucia YES NO NOSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES NO NO

Singapore YES N/ASlovakia YES NOSlovenia NO NO NOSpain NO YESSri Lanka YES NO NOSudan N/A N/A NOSwaziland N.A N/A N/ASweden YESSwitzerland NO YES NOSyrian Arab Rep. YES YES NOThailand YES NO NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES NO NO

Trinidad & Tobago YES NO NOTunisia YES YES NOTurkey NO YES NOUkraine NO NO NOUnited Kingdom YES NO NOUSA YES NO N/AUruguay YES YES NOZambia YES N/A N/AOAPIBBM YES YESEC NO NO NO

E. If YES, please explain how they are defined and the particular requirements (such as regulations for use or minimum content of regulations):

Most replies indicated that certification marks were those used to attest that a product or service complied with established standards or specifications, particularly regarding its quality, material used and methodology employed. The characteristics of the product or service to be certified and the control measures to be adopted by the owner of the mark must be presented. Regulations for use were required. According to one reply certification marks indicated regional or other origin, material, mode of manufacture, quality, accuracy, or other characteristic or that a member of a union or other organization performed the work or labor on the goods/services. Certification marks were not used by the owner of the mark but by third parties.

F. If YES, please explain how they are defined and the particular requirements (such as regulations for use or minimum content of regulations):

See the reply to the question 5E.

SCT/14/5page 38

G. If YES, please explain which types of marks:

Appellations of origin, commercial names and emblems were mentioned.

SCT/14/5page 39

III. APPLICATION PROCEDURE


1. Must an application be based on use?

2. Must evidence of use be provided at the time of filing?

3. Must an application be based on intent to use?

Algeria NO NO NOArmenia NO NO NOAustralia NO NO YESAustria NO NO NOBangladesh YES NOBelarus NO NO NOBrazil NO N/A NOBulgaria NO NO NOCanada NO NO NOChile NO NO NOChina NO NO YESColombia NO NO NOCosta Rica NO YESCroatia NO NO NOCzech Rep. NO NO NODenmark NO N/A NODominicaEcuador NO NO NOEl Salvador NO NO NOEstonia NO NO NOFinland NO N/A NOFrance NO NO NOGeorgia NO NO NOGermany NO NO NOHungary NO NO NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YES YESIreland YES NO YESItaly NO NO NOJamaica NO NO NOJapan NO NO YESKyrgyzstan NO NO NOLithuania NO NO NOMadagascar NO NO NOMalta NO NO YESMauritius NO NO NOMexico NO NO YESMonaco NO NO NOMorocco NO NO NONew Zealand NO NO YESNorway NO N/A YESOman NO NO NOPakistan NO NO YESPanama NO NO YESPeru NO NO NOPhilippines NO NO YESPortugal NO NO NORep. of Korea NO NO NORep. of Moldova NO NO NORomania NO NO NORussian Federation NO NO NO

SCT/14/5page 40



1. Must an application be based on use?

2. Must evidence of use be provided at the time of filing?

3. Must an application be based on intent to use?

Saint Lucia YES NO YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES NO NO

Singapore NO NO NOSlovakia NO NO NOSlovenia NO NO NOSpain NO NO NOSri Lanka NO NO NOSudan NO NO YESSwaziland YES NO YESSweden NO NOSwitzerland NO NO NOSyrian Arab Rep. NO NO NOThailand NO NO YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

NO NO NO

Trinidad & Tobago NO NO NOTunisia NO NO NOTurkey NO NO NOUkraine NO NO NOUnited Kingdom NO NO YESUSA NO NO YESUruguay NO NO NOZambia NO NO YESOAPI YES NO NOBBM NO NO NOEC NO NO NO

1. If YES, when does the protection start?

Out of the few replies that confirmed that an application must be based on use, two said that protection would start from the filing date of an application, one said that protection would start from the date of registration of a mark and another one said that the domestic law did not provide for any special requirements in this regard.

3. If YES, what are the requirements?

The majority said that a declaration/statement of actual use or intent to use was required at the time of filing an application or, in one case specifically, within three years from that date. It was specified that applications must be based on a good faith intention to use the mark in commerce in respect of the goods/services covered by the registration, or used in connection with the applicant’s business.

SCT/14/5page 41



4. Must evidence of intent to use be provided at the time of filing?

5. Is use required before registration?

6. Does prior good faith use of a mark give an applicant a preferential right against another application?

Algeria NO NO NOArmenia NO NO NOAustralia NO NO YESAustria NO NO NOBangladesh NO NOBelarus NO NO NOBrazil N/A NO YESBulgaria NO NO NOCanada NO YES YESChile NO NO YESChina NO NO N/AColombia NO NO NOCosta Rica NO NO YESCroatia NO NO NOCzech Rep. NO NO NODenmark NODominicaEcuador NO NO NOEl Salvador NO NO NOEstonia NO NO NOFinland N/A NOFrance NO NO NOGeorgia NO NO YESGermany NO NO NOHungary NO NO NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES NO YESIreland NO NO YESItaly NO NO YESJamaica NO YES YESJapan NO NO NOKyrgyzstan NO NO NOLithuania NO NO NOMadagascar NO NO NOMalta NO NO N/AMauritius NO NO NOMexico NO NO YESMonaco NO NO NO Morocco NO NO NONew Zealand NO NO NONorway NOOman NO NO YESPakistan NO NO YESPanama NO NO YESPeru NO NO NOPhilippines NO NO NOPortugal NO NO YESRep. of Korea NO NO NORep. of Moldova NO NO NO

SCT/14/5page 42



4. Must evidence of intent to use be provided at the time of filing?

5. Is use required before registration?

6. Does prior good faith use of a mark give an applicant a preferential right against another application?

Romania NO NO NORussian Federation NO NO NOSaint Lucia NO NO NOSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

NO NO NO

Singapore NOSlovakia NO YES YESSlovenia NO NO NOSpain NO NO NOSri Lanka NO NO YESSudan NO NO YESSwaziland YES NO YESSweden NO NOSwitzerland NO NO NOSyrian Arab Rep. NO NO NOThailand NO NO YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

NO NO NO

Trinidad & Tobago NO NO NOTunisia NO NO NOTurkey NO NO NOUkraine NO NO N/AUnited Kingdom NO NO NOUSA YES YES NOUruguay NO NO NOZambia NO NO YESOAPI NO NO YESBBM NO NO NOEC NO NO NO

6. If YES, please explain:

The general approach was that in case of two or more similar marks, a prior right would be given to a mark first used in commerce. However, some replies pointed out that this right would only be granted if the mark had been used for at least three or six months. Usually a prior right would be ensured by means of opposition, or through considering the well-known marks. One reply stated that prior rights served only as evidence in court actions.

SCT/14/5page 43



7. Is there a maximum time limit for a first IP office action on a trademark application?

8. Are proceduresavailable to expedite the processing of an application?

8bis. If “YES” to 8, is there an additionalfee?

9. Are multiple-class applications permitted

Algeria NO NO YESArmenia YES NO YESAustralia NO YES NO YESAustria NO NO YESBangladesh NO YES YES NOBelarus YES NO YESBrazil NO NO NOBulgaria NO NO YESCanada NO YES NO YESChile NO YES YES YESChina NO NO YESColombia YES NO NOCosta Rica NO NO N/A NOCroatia NO NO N/A YESCzech Rep. NO YES NO YESDenmark N/A NO YESDominicaEcuador NO NO YESEl Salvador YES NO NOEstonia NO NO YESFinland NO YES NO YESFrance YES NO YESGeorgia YES NO YESGermany NO YES YES YESHungary NO NO YES YESIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES NO NO YESIreland YES NO N/A YESItaly NO YES NO YESJamaica YES NO N/A YESJapan YES YES NO YESKyrgyzstan YES YES YES YESLithuania YES YES BO YESMadagascar NO YES NO YESMalta N/A NO N/A NOMauritius NO NO NO YESMexico YES NO NOMonaco YES YES NO YESMorocco YES NO NO YESNew Zealand YES NO NO YESNorway N/A NO N/A YESOman NO NO NO N/APakistan YES NO NOPanama YES NO NOPeru YES NO NOPhilippines NO YES YES YESPortugal YES YES YES YESRep. of Korea NO NO YES

SCT/14/5page 44



7. Is there a maximum time limit for a first IP office action on a trademark application?

8. Are proceduresavailable to expedite the processing of an application?

8bis. If “YES” to 8, is there an additionalfee?

9. Are multiple-class applications permitted

Rep. of Moldova NO YES YES YESRomania NO NO YESRussian Federation NO YES YES YESSaint Lucia NO YES YES YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

NO YES YES YES

Singapore N/A YES NO NOSlovakia NO YES NO YESSlovenia NO YES NO YESSpain NO YES YES YESSri Lanka NO NO NOSudan YES YES NO YESSwaziland NO YES YES YESSweden NO YES NO YESSwitzerland YES YES YES YESSyrian Arab Rep. NO NO YESThailand NO NO NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

NO YES YES YES

Trinidad & Tobago NO NO YESTunisia NO NO YESTurkey NO YES YES YESUkraine YES NO YESUnited Kingdom NO NO YESUSA YES YES YES YESUruguay N/A NO YESZambia YES N/A N/A N/AOAPI NO NO YESBBM NO YES YES YESEC NO NO N/A YES

7. If YES, please explain if the time limit is stipulated by a statute or if it depends on the nature of the action, and how long the time limit is:

Time limits varied from 15 days to 18 months from the date of deposit of an application or, in one specific case, from the date of its publication. Time limits were usually stipulated by national or administrative statutes or laws and applied with regard to formal and/or substantive examination of a mark.

SCT/14/5page 45



10. Is electronic filing permitted?

11. Can applications be assigned?

12. Can applications be modified?

Algeria NO YES YESArmenia NO YES YESAustralia YES YES YESAustria NO YES YESBangladesh NO YESBelarus NO YES YESBrazil YES YES NOBulgaria NO YES NOCanada YES YES YESChile YES NO YESChina YES YES YESColombia NO YES YESCosta Rica NO YES YESCroatia NO YES YESCzech Rep. YES YES N/ADenmark YES YESDominicaEcuador NO YES YESEl Salvador NO YES YESEstonia NO YES NOFinland NO YES YESFrance NO YES YESGeorgia NO YES YESGermany N/A YES NOHungary NO YES YESIran (Islamic Rep. of) NO YES YESIreland NO NO YESItaly NO YES NOJamaica N/A YES YESJapan YES YES YESKyrgyzstan N/A YES YESLithuania NO YESMadagascar NO YES YESMalta NO YES YESMauritius NO YES YESMexico NO YES YESMonaco NO YES YESMorocco NO NO NONew Zealand YES YES YESNorway YES YESOman N/A YES YESPakistan NO YES YESPanama NO YES YESPeru NO YES YESPhilippines NO YES YESPortugal NORep. of Korea YES YES YESRep. of Moldova N/A YES YESRomania NO NO YESRussian Federation NO YES YESSaint Lucia NO YES YES

SCT/14/5page 46



10. Is electronic filing permitted?

11. Can applications be assigned?

12. Can applications be modified?

Singapore YES YESSlovakia NO YES YESSlovenia NO YES N/ASwitzerland YES YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

NO YES YES

Trinidad & Tobago NO YES YESTunisia NO YES YESTurkey NO YES NOUkraine NO YES YESUnited Kingdom YES YES NOUSA YES YES YESUruguay N/A YES NOZambia N/A NO YESOAPI NO YESBBM YES YES NOEC YES YES YES

10. If YES, what are the benefits for the administration and are there any problems arising from its implementation?

The majority of replies indicated that electronic filing accelerated, facilitated and made the procedure efficient by reducing administration costs and enabling offices to check formalities automatically. It was also said that the system was user-friendly as it provided database search functions. One reply mentioned that almost half of the applications were filed electronically. Although no significant problems were reported, one reply stated that users found the system less accessible and electronic payment of fees problematic. Another reply pointed out the lack of a fully secured system, specifying that all applications currently filed by electronic means must be followed by the original in paper. However, secured electronic filing with electronic/digital signature would be available in the future.

11. If YES, please explain what the requirements are:

The majority said that an applicant might request the recording of the assignment of an application by presenting the deed of assignment (or its certified copy) and through payment of the prescribed fees (if any). Some required a request be made in a specific form. Others mentioned that a request must indicate all the details of an application, the signatures of the parties, a statement that the mark was in use, and the goods/services being assigned.

12. If YES, does the modification have an effect on the filing date or on the protection of the mark?

Some replies indicated that changes concerning only secondary aspects of an application (spelling errors, obvious mistakes, etc.) did not alter its filing date. On the other hand, changes affecting the essence of a mark or the scope of protection of an application (i.e., extension of the list of goods/services) were not permitted. However, others said that

SCT/14/5page 47

modifications did not affect at all the filing date or the protection of a mark. Finally, it was said that if a mark was replaced or essentially modified, the filing date would be that on which the change was made and, in some cases, the application would have to be republished.

SCT/14/5page 48

IV. EXAMINATION PROCEDURE1. Ex officio examination

Responding countries/Regional IPoffices

A. Does the IP office ex officio examine applications for marks with regards to:

(i) Formal requirements?

(ii) Absolute grounds/inherent registrability?

(iii) Relative grounds for refusal (prior rights)?

(iv) Grounds for refusal as a whole?

(v) Other

Algeria YES N/A YES YESArmenia YES YES YES YESAustralia YES YES YES NO YESAustria YES YES NO YESBangladesh YES YES YES YESBelarus YES YES YESBrazil YES YES YES YES NOBulgaria YES YES YES NOCanada YES YES YES NOChile YES YES YES YES YESChina YES YES YES N/AColombia YES YES YES YESCosta Rica YES YES YES YESCroatia YES YES NO NOCzech Rep. YES YES YES YESDenmark YES YES YES YESDominicaEcuador YES YES YES YESEl Salvador YES YES YES N/AEstonia YES YES YES YESFinland YES YES YES YESFrance YES YES NOGeorgia YES YES YES YESGermany YES YES NO N/AHungary YES YES YES YESIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YES YES YESIreland YES YES YES NO N/AItaly YES YES NO YESJamaica YES YES YES YES N/AJapan YES YES YES YESKyrgyzstan YES YES YES YES NOLithuania YES YES NOMadagascar YES NO NO YESMalta YES YES YES YESMauritius YES YES YES YESMexico YES YES YES YESMonaco YES YES NO N/AMorocco YES NO NO N/A N/ANew Zealand YES YES YES YES YESNorway YES YES YES YESOman YES YES YES YESPakistan YES YES YES YESPanama YES YES YES N/APeru YES YES YES YESPhilippines YES YES YES YESPortugal

SCT/14/5page 49



A. Does the IP office ex officio examine applications for marks with regards to:

(i) Formal requirements?

(ii) Absolute grounds/inherent registrability?

(iii) Relative grounds for refusal (prior rights)?

(iv) Grounds for refusal as a whole?

(v) Other

Rep. of Korea YES YES YES YESRep. of Moldova YES YES YES YES YESRomania YES YES YES NORussian Federation YES YES YES YESSaint Lucia YES YES YES YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES NO

Singapore YES YES YESSlovakia YES YES NO NOSlovenia YES YES NO N/ASpain YES YES NOSri Lanka YES YES YES N/ASudan YES YES YES NOSwaziland YES YES YES N/ASweden YES YES YES YESSwitzerland YES YES NO NOSyrian Arab Rep. YES YES YES YESThailand YES YES YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES YES NO

Trinidad & Tobago YES YES YES YESTunisia YES YES NO NOTurkey YES YES YES YESUkraine YES YES YES YESUnited Kingdom YES YES YES NOUSA YES YES YES NOUruguay YES YES YESZambia YES YES YES YESOAPI YES YES NOBBM YES YES NOEC YES YES NO NO

A(v) Other:

In some replies some specific formal requirements were mentioned, such as capability of being represented graphically, as well as some absolute or relative grounds for refusal were listed.

SCT/14/5page 50



B. Does the IP office publish the applications?

C. Does the ex officio substantive examination occur:

(i) Prior to the publication of the application?

(ii) After the publication of the application?

(iii). Does ex officio substantive examination occur prior to the publication of the registration?

Algeria NO YESArmenia NO NO NO YESAustralia YES NO YES N/AAustria NO YESBangladesh YES NOBelarus NO YESBrazil YES NO YES NOBulgaria NO YESCanada YES YES N/A N/AChile YES YES YES NOChina YES YES NOColombia YES NO YES NOCosta Rica NOCroatia YES YES NO YESCzech Rep. YES YES N/A NODenmark YES N/ADominicaEcuador YES NO YES NOEl Salvador YES YES NO NOEstonia YES YES NO NOFinland NO YESFrance YES YES YES YESGeorgia YES YES NO YESGermany YES YES YESHungary YES N/A N/A YESIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YES NO YESIreland NO YES NO NOItaly YES YESJamaica NO YES YES N/AJapan NO YESKyrgyzstan NO NO NO YESLithuania NO YESMadagascar NO YESMalta YES YESMauritius YES YES NO NOMexico NO N/A NO YESMonaco YESMorocco YESNew Zealand YES YES NO NONorway YES N/AOman YES YES NO NOPakistan YES YES YES YESPanama YES YESPeru YES NO YES NOPhilippines YES NO YES

SCT/14/5page 51



B. Does the IP office publish the applications?

C. Does the ex officio substantive examination occur:

(i) Prior to the publication of the application?

(ii) After the publication of the application?

(iii). Does ex officio substantive examination occur prior to the publication of the registration?

Portugal YES NO YES YESRep. of Korea YES YES YES YESRep. of Moldova YES YES NO YESRomania NO YESRussian Federation YES YESSaint Lucia YES NO NOSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

NO YES YES

Singapore YESSlovakia YES YES NO YESSlovenia YES YES NO NOSpain YES YESSri Lanka N/A N/ASudan YES NO NOSwaziland YES YESSweden NO NOSwitzerland NO YESSyrian Arab Rep. YES NO NOThailand YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES YES NO NO

Trinidad & Tobago YES NO N/ATunisia YES YES NO NOTurkey YES NO NOUkraine NO YESUnited Kingdom YES YES NO N/AUSA YES YES YES YESUruguay YES NO YES N/AZambia NO YES NO NOOAPI NOBBM YES NO YES YESEC YES YES YES YES

B. If YES, what are the legal effects of the publication?

Most replies indicated that the publication of an application marked the beginning of the time limit during which oppositions or observations might be filed. In one reply it was pointed out that an applicant was very restricted in amending the application in any way. Even if there were errors in an application which were applicant’s or attorney’s fault, these could not be corrected if they had the effect of extending the rights deriving from the application or substantially affecting its identity.

SCT/14/5page 52

IV. EXAMINATION PROCEDURE2. Absolute grounds for refusal

If the application is examined to determine whether it meets statutory requirements, what are, according to your legislation, the absolute grounds for refusal?


A. Signs which are not capable of distinguishing

B. Signs which do not satisfy other requirements of the definition of a mark

C. Signs devoid of any distinctive character

Algeria YES YES YESArmenia YES YES YESAustralia YES YES YESAustria YES YES YESBangladesh YESBelarus YES YES YESBrazil YES YES YESBulgaria YES YES YESCanada NO YES NOChile YES YES YESChina YES YES YESColombia YES YES YESCosta Rica YES NO YESCroatia YES YES YESCzech Rep. YES YES YESDenmark YES YES YESDominicaEcuador YES YES YESEl Salvador NO YES YESEstonia YES YES YESFinland YES YES YESFrance YES YES NOGeorgia YES YES YESGermany YES YES YESHungary YES YES YESIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YES YESIreland YES YES YESItaly YES YES YESJamaica YES YES YESJapan YES YES YESKyrgyzstan YES YES YESLithuania YES YES YESMadagascarMalta YES YES YESMauritius YES YES YESMexico YES YES YESMonaco N/A YES YESMorocco NO NO NONew Zealand YES YES YESNorway YES N/A YESOman YES YES YESPakistan YES YES YESPanama N/A N/A YESPeru YES YES YESPhilippines YES YES YESPortugal YES YES YES

SCT/14/5page 53


If the application is examined to determine whether it meets statutory requirements, what are, according to your legislation, the absolute grounds for refusal?



B. Signs which do not satisfy other requirements of the definition of a mark


Rep. of Korea YES YES YESRep. of Moldova YES YES YESRomania YES YESRussian Federation YES YES YESSaint Lucia YES YES YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES YES N/A

Singapore YES YES YESSlovakia YES YES YESSlovenia YES YES YESSpain YES YES YESSri Lanka YES YES YESSudan YES N/A YESSwaziland YES YES YESSweden YES YESSwitzerland YES YES YESSyrian Arab Rep. YES YES YESThailand YES YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES YES YES

Trinidad & Tobago YES YES YESTunisia YES YES YESTurkey YES YES YESUkraine YES NO YESUnited Kingdom YES YES YESUSA YES YES YESUruguay YES YES YESZambia YES YES YESOAPI YESBBM YES YES YESEC YES YES YES

SCT/14/5page 54


If the application is examined to determine whether it meets statutory requirements, what are, according to your legislation, the absolute grounds for refusal


D. Descriptive signs E. Signs that have become generic

F. Generic terms

Algeria YES YES YESArmenia YES YES YESAustralia YES NO NOAustria YES YES YESBangladesh YES NOBelarus YES YES YESBrazil YES YES YESBulgaria YES YES YESCanada YES YES YESChile YES YES YESChina YES YES N/AColombia YES YES YESCosta Rica YES YES YESCroatia YES YES YESCzech Rep. YES YES NODenmark YES YES YESDominicaEcuador YES YES YESEl Salvador YES YES YESEstonia YES YES YESFinland YES YES YESFrance YES YES YESGeorgia YES YES YESGermany YES YES NOHungary YES YES YESIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YESIreland YES YESItaly YES YES YESJamaica YES YES YESJapan YES YES YESKyrgyzstan YES YES YESLithuaniaMadagascar YES YES YESMalta YES YES YESMauritius YES YES YESMexico YES YES YESMonaco NO NO NOMorocco YES YES YESNew Zealand YES YES YESNorwayOman YES YES YESPakistan YES YES YESPanama YES YES YESPeru YES YES YESPhilippines YES YES YESPortugal YES YES YESRep. of Korea YES YES YESRep. of Moldova YES YES YES

SCT/14/5page 55




D. Descriptive signs E. Signs that have become generic

F. Generic terms

Romania YES YES YESRussian Federation YES YES YESSaint Lucia N/A NO N/ASt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES YES YES

Singapore YES YES YESSlovakia YES YES YESSlovenia YES YES YESSpain YES YES YESSri LankaSudan NO NO NOSwaziland YES YESSweden YES YES YESSwitzerland YES YES YESSyrian Arab Rep. YES YES YESThailand YES YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES YES YES

Trinidad & TobagoTunisia YES YES YESTurkeyUkraine YES YES YESUnited Kingdom YES YES YESUSA YES YES YESUruguay YES YES YESZambia NO YESOAPI YES YES N/ABBM YES YES N/AEC YES YES N/A

F. If YES, describe how the term “generic” is understood:

The majority answered that generic terms were examined in respect of the claimed goods and/or services. Protection would be refused if the generic term was descriptive for the goods and/or services.

SCT/14/5page 56




G. Signs contraryto morality or public order

H. Signs of such a nature as to deceive the public

I. Signs contraryto Article 6terof the ParisConvention

J. Signs benefiting protection from other international conventions (Red Cross, olympic symbols…)

Algeria YES YES YES YESArmenia YES YES YES YESAustralia YES YES YES YESAustria YES YES YES YESBangladesh NO NO NO NOBelarus YES YES YES YESBrazil YES YES YES YESBulgaria YES YES YES YESCanada YES YES YES YESChile YES YES YES YESChina YES YES YES YESColombia YES YES YES YESCosta Rica YES YES YES YESCroatia YES YES YES YESCzech Rep. YES YES YES YESDenmark YES YES YES YESEcuador YES YES YES YESEl Salvador YES YES YES YESEstonia YES YES YES YESFinland YES YES YES YESFrance YES YES YES YESGeorgia YES YES YES YESGermany YES YES YES YESHungary YES YES YES YESIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YES YES YESIreland YES YES YES YESItaly YES YES YES YESJamaica YES YES YES YESJapan YES YES YES YESKyrgyzstan YES YES YES YESLithuania YES YES YES YESMadagascarMalta YES YES YES YESMauritius YES YES YES YESMexico YES YES YES YESMonaco YES YES YES NOMorocco YES NO YES YESNew Zealand YES YES YES YESNorway YES YES YES YESOman YES YES YES YESPakistan YES YES YES YESPanama YES YES YES YESPeru YES YES YES

SCT/14/5page 57




G. Signs contraryto morality or public order


I. Signs contraryto Article 6terof the ParisConvention

J. Signs benefiting protection from other international conventions (Red Cross, olympic symbols…)

Philippines YES YES YES YESPortugal YES YES YES YESRep. of Korea YES YES YES YESRep. of Moldova YES YES YES YESRomania YES YES YES YESRussian Federation YES YES YES YESSaint Lucia YES YES YES NOSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES YES YES YES

Singapore YES YES YES YESSlovakia YES YES YES YESSlovenia YES YES YES YESSpain YES YES YES YESSri Lanka YES YES YES YESSudan YES YES YES YESSwaziland YES YES YES YESSweden YES YES YES YESSwitzerland YES YES YES YESSyrian Arab Rep. YES YES YES YESThailand YES YES YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES YES YES YES

Trinidad & Tobago YES YES YES YESTunisia YES YES YES YESTurkey YES YES YES YESUkraine YES YES YES YESUnited Kingdom YES YES YES YESUSA YES YES YES YESUruguay YES YES YES YESZambia YES YES YES YESOAPI YES YES YES YESBBM YES YES YES N/AEC YES YES YES NO

SCT/14/5page 58




K. Signs protected by national laws: L. Well-known/famous marks/marks having a reputation

(i) Royal emblems (ii) Signs of indigenous people and local communities

(iii) Others

Algeria YES YESArmenia NO NO YES YESAustralia NO NO YES NOAustria NO NO NO NOBangladesh NO NO N/A NOBelarus NO NO YES NOBrazil YES NO YES YESBulgaria NO NO NO YESCanada YES YES YES NOChile YES YES YES YESChina NO NO YESColombia YES YES YES YESCosta Rica YES YES YES YESCroatia NO YES YES NOCzech Rep. YES NO N/A NODenmark YES N/A YES NOEcuador YES YES YES YESEl Salvador N/A YES YES YESEstonia NO YES YES NOFinland N/A NOFrance NO NO NO NOGeorgia YES YES YES NOGermany NO YES YESHungary YES NO YES NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YES YESIreland YES YESItaly NO NO YES NOJamaica YES YES YES YESJapan YES N/A YES YESKyrgyzstan N/A N/A N/A NOLithuania NO NO YES NOMadagascarMalta YES YESMauritius YES YESMexico YES YES YES YESMonaco YES NO NO YESMorocco YES NO NONew Zealand YES NO YES YESNorway YES YES YES YESOman YES YES YES YESPakistan YES NO YESPanama YES YES YESPeru NO YES YES YES

SCT/14/5page 59




K. Signs protected by national laws: L. Well-known/famous marks/marks having a reputation

(i) Royal emblems (ii) Signs of indigenous people and local communities

(iii) Others

Philippines YES N/A N/A NOPortugal NO YES YES NORep. of Korea YESRep. of Moldova YES YES N/A YESRomania NO NO NO YESRussian Federation YES YES YES YESSaint Lucia YES NO N/A YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES N/A YES NO

Singapore YES NO N/A NOSlovakia YES YES YES NOSlovenia YES N/ASpain YES YESSri Lanka YES YES YES YESSudan YES YES YES YESSwaziland YES N/A YESSweden YES NO YES NOSwitzerland NO NO YES NOSyrian Arab Rep. YES YES YES YESThailand YES YES YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES YES YES NO

Trinidad & Tobago YES NO NO YESTunisia YES NO NO NOTurkey YES YES YES YESUkraine NO NO NO YESUnited Kingdom YES NO NO NOUSA NO YES N/A YESUruguay YES YES YESZambia YES N/A N/A N/AOAPI NO NO NO NOBBM N/A N/A N/A NOEC NO NO NO NO

SCT/14/5page 60




M. Appellations of origin, protected geographical indications

N. Business names/business identifiers

O. Names of famous people

P. Foreign words or expressions

Q. Others

Algeria YES YES YES N/AArmenia YES YES YES YESAustralia YES NO N O NOAustria YES NO NO NOBangladesh NO NO NO YESBelarus NO NO NO NOBrazil YES YES YES YES NOBulgaria YES NO YES YESCanada YES NO NO NOChile YES YES YES NOChina YES N/A YES YESColombia YES YES YES NOCosta Rica YES YES YES NOCroatia NO NO NO NO NOCzech Rep. NO NO NO NODenmark N/A NO NO N/ADominicaEcuador YES YES YES NOEl Salvador YES YES YES N YESEstonia YES NO NO NO YESFinland YESFrance YES NO NO NOGeorgia NO NO NO NO YESGermany YES NO NO NO YESHungary NO NO NO NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YES YES NOIrelandItaly YES NO YES YESJamaica YES YES YES YES N/AJapan YES N/A YES N/A YESKyrgyzstan YES NO NO NOLithuania N/A NO NO N/AMadagascarMalta YES NO NO NOMauritius YES YES YES YESMexico YES NO YES NO YESMonaco YES NO NO NOMorocco NO NO NO N/ANew Zealand YES NO YES NO YESNorway YES YES YES YES YESOman YES YES YES NOPakistan YES YES NO NOPanama YES YES YES NOPeru YES YES YES NOPhilippines YES NO YES NO

SCT/14/5page 61




M. Appellations of origin, protected geographical indications




Q. Others

Portugal NO NO NO NO YESRep. of Korea YES NO YES NORep. of Moldova YES NO YES NORomania YES YES YES YES YESRussian Federation YES YES YES NO YESSaint Lucia YES NO YES YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

NO NO NO NO

Singapore YES NO NO NOSlovakia NO NO NO NOSlovenia YES N/ASpain YESSri Lanka YES YES YES YESSudan YES NO NO NOSwaziland N/A YES YES YESSweden YES NO NO NOSwitzerland YES NO YES YESSyrian Arab Rep. YES YES YES NOThailand YES YES YES NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES NO YES NO

Trinidad & Tobago YES NO NO NOTunisia NO NO NO NOTurkey YES NO NO NOUkraine YES YES YES NOUnited Kingdom YES NO NO NOUSA YES YES YES YESUruguay YES NO NO YESZambia N/A NO NO NOOAPI NO NO NO NOBBM YES NO NO NOEC YES NO NO NO YES

Q. Others:

In one reply it was indicated that a sign should not be granted protection if its registration was applied in bad faith. Also a sign should not be granted protection if it consisted of symbols having close relation to religious or any other beliefs. Plant variety names and International Nonproprietary Names (INNs) for Pharmaceutical Substances were also mentioned as absolute grounds for refusal. In one reply were listed trademarks which consisted solely of a mark indicating, in a common way, a commonplace surname or name of a legal entity, trademarks comprising a sign which was identical with, or similar to, a prize

SCT/14/5page 62

awarded at an exhibition held by the government or a local public entity or at one which was not held by the government, but had been designated by the Commissioner of the patent office or at an international exhibition held in a foreign country by its government or a person authorized thereby and trademarks which are identical with, or similar to, a famous mark indicating a non-profit public entity of public service.

SCT/14/5page 63




R. Must the examiner follow precedents?

S. Does the IP office envisage filing of ex parte objections?

T. Length of time given to applicant to respond to ex parte objections:

U. Are extensions of time granted to respond to ex parte objections?

(i) Decisions of judicial or administrative tribunals

(ii) Decisions of other examiners

Algeria N/A N/A NO NOArmenia NO NO YES 2 months YESAustralia YES NO YES 15 months YESAustria NO NO YES 2 months YESBangladesh 3 months YESBelarus NO YESBrazil YES YES NO N/ABulgaria NO NO NOCanada YES NO NO N/AChile YES YES NOChina YES N/A NOColombia YES YES YES 30 days NOCosta Rica YES YES NOCroatia NO NO YES 15 days NOCzech Rep. N/A N/A NO N/ADenmark YES N/A 4 or 8 months YESDominicaEcuador YES YES NOEl Salvador YES YES YES 2 months NOEstonia NO YES N/A N/AFinland YES NO N/AFrance YES NO YES No obligation

to respondNO

Georgia NO NO YES 2 months N/AGermany NO NO N/AHungary NO NO YES N/AIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES NO YES 60 days NOIreland NOItaly NO NO NOJamaica YES YES YES 3 months YESJapan N/A N/AKyrgyzstan N/A N/A YES 2 months YESLithuania YES N/A YES 3 to 5 months YESMadagascarMalta NO YES NOMauritius YES YES YESMexico YES NOMonaco YES YES NOMorocco N/A N/A NONew Zealand YES NO NO N/A N/ANorway YES NO 3 months YESOman YES YES YES 2 months NOPakistan

SCT/14/5page 64




R. Must the examiner follow precedents?

S. Does the IP office envisage filing of ex parte objections?

T. Length of time given to applicant to respond to ex parte objections:

U. Are extensions of time granted to respond to ex parte objections?

(i) Decisions of judicial or administrative tribunals

(ii) Decisions of other examiners

Panama YES NO YES 90 days NOPeru NO NO YES 30 days NOPhilippines YES NO NOPortugal YES NO YES YESRep. of Korea NO NO N/A N/ARep. of Moldova NO NO YES 3 to 6 months YESRomania NO YES YES 3 months YESRussian Federation NO NO NOSaint Lucia NO NO YES 3 to 1 year YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES YES YES 3 months YES

Singapore N/A N/A Within 2 months

YES

Slovakia YES YES YES 2 months YESSlovenia YES YES YES NOSpain YES NO YES 1 month YESSri Lanka YES NO YES 1 month YESSudan N/A N/A YES 1 month YESSwaziland YES NO YES Within 3

monthsYES

Sweden YES NOSwitzerland YES YES NOSyrian Arab Rep. NO NO YES NOThailand YES NO YES 90 days NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

NO NO NO

Trinidad & Tobago YES YES 3 months YESTunisia NO NO YES 45 days NOTurkey YES YES YES 2 months NOUkraine NO NO YES NOUnited Kingdom YES NO YES 3 months YESUSA YES NO YES 6 months YESUruguay NO NO YES 30 days YESZambia YES YES NOOAPI NO NO 3 months YESBBM YES NO NOEC NO NO YES 2 months YES

R(i) If YES, please explain the practical consequences:

Most replies stated that examiners followed thoroughly established judicial and administrative precedents and understandings in order to support their own decisions.

SCT/14/5page 65

R(ii) If YES, please explain the practical consequences:

Most replies indicated that examiners needed to consider precedents when making decisions. Consistency was considered desirable but might not always be appropriate. In order to support decisions, examiners followed decisions of other examiners, when such decisions were based on well-established understandings.

SCT/14/5page 66

IV. EXAMINATION PROCEDURE3. Relative grounds for refusal (prior rights)

If the application is examined ex officio to determine whether the trademark application is in conflict with prior rights, what are, according to the applicable legislation, considered as prior rights?


A. An identical mark registered or applied for by another person in respect of identical goods or services

B. An identical mark registered or applied for by another person in respect of similar goods or services

C. A similar mark registered or applied for by another person in respect of identical goods or services

D. A similar mark registered or applied for by another person in respect of similar goods or services

Algeria YES YES YES YESArmenia YES YES YES YESAustralia YES YES YES YESAustria N/A N/A N/A N/ABangladesh NO NO NO NOBelarus YES YES YES YESBrazil YES YES YES YESBulgaria YES YES YES YESCanada YES YES YESChile YES YES YES YESChina YES YES YES YESColombia YES YES YES YESCosta Rica YES NO YES NOCroatia N/A N/A N/A N/ACzech Rep. YES YES YES YESDenmark YES YES YES YESDominicaEcuador YES YES YES YESEl Salvador YES YES YES YESEstonia YES YES YES YESFinland YES YES YES YESFranceGeorgia YES YES YES YESGermanyHungary YES YES YES YESIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YES YES YESIreland YES YES YES YESItalyJamaica YES YES YES YESJapan YES YES YES YESKyrgyzstan YES YES YES YESLithuania YES YES YES YESMadagascarMalta YES YES YES YESMauritius YES YES YES YESMexico YES YES YES YESMonaco NO NO NO NOMorocco N/A N/A N/A N/ANew Zealand YES YES YES YESNorway YES YES YES YESOman YES YES YES YESPakistan YES YES YES YESPanama YES YES YES YES

SCT/14/5page 67


If the application is examined ex officio to determine whether the trademark application is in conflict with prior rights, what are, according to the applicable legislation, considered as prior rights?


A. An identical mark registered or applied for by another person in respect of identical goods or services

B. An identical mark registered or applied for by another person in respect of similar goods or services

C. A similar mark registered or applied for by another person in respect of identical goods or services

D. A similar mark registered or applied for by another person in respect of similar goods or services

Peru YES YES YES YESPhilippines YES YES YES YESPortugal YES YES YES YESRep. of Korea YES YES YES YESRep. of Moldova YES NO YES NORomania YES YES YES YESRussian Federation YES YES YES YESSaint Lucia YES YES YES YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES YES YES YES

Singapore YES YES YES YESSlovakia YES YES YES YESSloveniaSpainSri Lanka YES YES YES YESSudan YES YES YES YESSwaziland YES YES YES YESSweden YES YES YES YESSwitzerlandSyrian Arab Rep. YES NO YES NOThailand YES YES YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of MacedoniaTrinidad & Tobago YES YES YES YESTunisia N/A N/A N/A N/ATurkey YES YES YES YESUkraine YES YES YES YESUnited Kingdom YES YES YES YESUSA YES YES YES YESUruguay YES YES YES YESZambia YES YES YES YESOAPI YES YES YES YESBBMEC

D. Please explain, whether in all cases a likelihood of confusion is necessary or only cases B to D:

Many replies indicated that likelihood of confusion was necessary only in cases B to D. A minor group required likelihood of confusion in all cases.

SCT/14/5page 68

SCT/14/5page 69


If the application is examined ex officio to determine whether the trademark application is in conflict with prior rights, what are, according to the applicable legislation, considered as prior rights


E. A well-knownmark

F. Signs of indigenous peoples and local communities

G. Business names/business identifiers (tradenames, abbreviations of tradenames)

H. Appellation of origin/protected geographical indications

Algeria YES N/A YESArmenia YES NO YES YESAustralia NO NO NO YESAustria N/A N/A N/A N/ABangladesh NO YES NO NOBelarus YES NO YES YESBrazil YES NO NO YESBulgaria YES NO NO YESCanada NO NO NO YESChile YES YES YES YESChina YES YES YES YESColombia YES YES YES YESCosta Rica YES NO YES YESCroatia N/A N/A N/A N/ACzech Rep. NO NO NO NODenmark YES N/A YES N/ADominicaEcuador YES YES YES YESEl Salvador YES YES YES YESEstonia YES N/A YES YESFinland YES YES YESFranceGeorgia YES NO YES YESGermanyHungary YES YES YES YESIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YES YES YESIreland YES YESItalyJamaica YES YES YES YESJapan YES N/A N/A YESKyrgyzstan YES N/A YES YESLithuania YES YES YES YESMadagascarMalta YES N/A N/A N/AMauritius YES YES YES YESMexico YES YES NO YESMonaco YES NO NO NOMorocco N/A N/A N/A N/ANew Zealand NO NO NO YESNorway YES YES YES YESOman YES YES YES YESPakistan YES NO YES NOPanama YES YES YESPeru YES YES YES YESPhilippines YES N/A YES YES

SCT/14/5page 70




E. A well-knownmark

F. Signs of indigenous peoples and local communities

G. Business names/business identifiers (tradenames, abbreviations of tradenames)

H. Appellation of origin/protected geographical indications

Portugal YES NO YES YESRep. of Korea YES N/A NO YESRep. of Moldova YES YES NO YESRomania YES NO YES YESRussian Federation YES NO YES YESSaint Lucia YES NO NO YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

NO NO NO NO

Singapore YES NO NO NOSlovakia YES YES YES YESSloveniaSpainSri Lanka YES YES YES YESSudan YES NO N/A N/ASwaziland YES YES YES YESSweden YES NO YES YESSwitzerlandSyrian Arab Rep. YES YES YES YESThailand YES NO YES NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of MacedoniaTrinidad & Tobago NO NO NO YESTunisia NO N/A NO NOTurkey YES YES YES YESUkraine YES NO YES YESUnited Kingdom NO NO NO NOUSA YES YES YES YESUruguay YES YES YES NOZambia N/A N/A NO N/AOAPI NO NO YES YESBBMEC NO NO YES YES

SCT/14/5page 71



Respondingcountries/Regional IPoffices

I. Industrial designs

J. Copyrights

K.Personal names

L. Collective,guarantee or certification marks

M. Unregistered trademarks

N. Others

Algeria NO YES YESArmenia YES YES NO YES NOAustralia NO NO NO YES NO NOAustria N/A N/A N/A YES NO NOBangladesh N/A YES N/A N/A N/ABelarus YES YES YES YES YES YESBrazil NO NO YES YES NO NOBulgaria NO NO NO YES NO YESCanada NO NO YES YES NO YESChile NO YES YES NO YESChina YES YES NO YES YESColombia YES YES YES YES YES N/ACosta Rica YES YES YES YES YES NOCroatia N/A N/A N/A YES YES NOCzech Rep. NO NO NO N/A N/A N/ADenmark YES YES YES N/A NO NODominica YES YES N/AEcuador YES YES YESEl Salvador YES YES YES YES NO YESEstonia YES YES YES YES YESFinland YES YES YES YES NOFrance YES YESGeorgia YES N/A YESGermanyHungary YES YES YES YES YES YESIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YES YESIreland YES YES YES YES NOItaly YES YESJamaica YES YES YESJapan NO NO YES YES N/A YESKyrgyzstan YES YES NO YES N/A YESLithuania YES YES YES YES NO NOMadagascar YES N/A N/AMalta N/A N/A N/AMauritius YES YES NO N/A YESMexico NO YES YES YES YESMonaco NO NO NO YES NO NOMorocco N/A N/A N/A NO NO NONew Zealand NO NO YES NO N/ANorway YES YES YES NO NO YESOman YES YES YES YES YES NOPakistan NO NO YES YES YESPanama YES YES YESPeru YES YES YES YES YESPhilippines NO NO YES YES N/APortugal YES YES YES YES NO N/A

SCT/14/5page 72




I. Industrial designs

J. Copyrights

K.Personal names

L. Collective,guarantee or certification marks

M. Unregistered trademarks

N. Others

Rep. of Korea NO NO NO YES YES NORep. of Moldova YES YES YES YES NO YESRomania YES YES YES NO NO NORussian Federation YES YES NO YES NOSaint Lucia NO NO NO YES NO NOSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

NO NO NO YES NO N/A

Singapore NO NO NO YES NO NOSlovakia YES YES YES NO YES N/ASlovenia NO YES NOSpainSri Lanka YES YES YESSudan N/A N/A YES YES YESSwaziland YES YES YES N/A N/A YESSweden YES YES YES N/A N/ASwitzerlandSyrian Arab Rep. YES YES YESThailand NO NO NO NO NO NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of MacedoniaTrinidad & Tobago NO NO YES YES NOTunisia NO NO NO YES NO NOTurkey YES YES YES N/A N/A NOUkraine YES YES YES YES YES N/AUnited Kingdom NO NO NOUSA YES YES YES YES NO NOUruguay NO YES YES YES YES YESZambia N/A N/A N/A YES NO YESOAPI YES YES NO NO NO N/ABBM YES NOEC YES YES NO

N. If YES, please list them:

Among others were mentioned composition marks, tradenames, design patents and the names and representations of historical monuments. In one reply the following was listed: designations or initials of public entities or agencies, where registration was not required by the public entity or agency; names, prizes or symbols of official or officially recognized sporting, artistic, cultural, social, political, economic or technical events or imitations likely to cause confusion, except when authorized by the competent authority or entity promoting the event; reproductions or imitations of titles, bonds, coins or bank notes of a Union, State, Federal District, Territory, Municipality or any country; signs that imitated or reproduced, in the whole or part, a mark which the applicant could not fail to have knowledge of in view of his activities and of which the owner was established or domiciled on the national territory, if the mark was intended to distinguish a product or service that was identical, similar or related,

SCT/14/5page 73

and likely to cause confusion or association with the mark of such other person; the name and signs of sport entities, and the name or nickname of athletes.

Another reply indicated the following as relative grounds for refusal: trademarks containing the portrait of another person or the name, famous pseudonym, professional name or pen name of another person or the famous abbreviation thereof (except where the consent of the person concerned had been obtained); trademarks which were identical with another person’s registered defensive mark, and which were used on the designated goods or designated services covered by the defensive mark registration; trademarks which were identical with another person’s trademark where one year had not elapsed since the date of extinguishment of the trademark right, or with a trademark similar to such a trademark, and which were used in respect of the designated goods or designated services covered by the trademark right or in respect of similar goods or services.

SCT/14/5page 74




O. Date of registration

(i) Filing date of application

(ii) Date of issuance of certificate of registration

(iii) Other

Algeria YES NOArmenia NO NO YESAustralia YES NOAustria YES N/ABangladesh YES YESBelarus NO NO YESBrazilBulgaria NO NO YESCanada NO YESChile YESChina YES NOColombia NO YESCosta Rica YES YESCroatia YES NOCzech Rep. NO YESDenmark NO NO YESDominicaEcuador YES YESEl Salvador NO YESEstonia YES NOFinland YES NOFrance NO NO YESGeorgia NO NO YESGermanyHungary NO NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) YESIreland YES NOItalyJamaica YES NO N/AJapan NO NO YESKyrgyzstan YES NO YESLithuania NO NO YESMadagascar NO NO YESMalta YES NOMauritius YES NOMexico YES NOMonaco NO NOMorocco YES NONew Zealand YES NO YESNorway NO NO YESOman NO NO

SCT/14/5page 75




O. Date of registration

(i) Filing date of application

(ii) Date of issuance of certificate of registration

(iii) Other

PakistanPanama YESPeru N/A N/APhilippines YES YESPortugal NO YES YESRep. of Moldova YES NORep. of Korea NO YESRomania YES NORussian Federation YES NOSaint Lucia YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES NO

Singapore YES NOSlovakia YES NOSlovenia NO YESSpainSri Lanka YESSudan YES NOSwaziland NO YES YESSweden YES NOSwitzerlandSyrian Arab Rep. YES NOThailand YES NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of MacedoniaTrinidad & Tobago YES NOTunisiaTurkey YES NOUkraine YESUnited Kingdom YES NOUSA YES YES YESUruguay YES NO YESZambia YES NOOAPI YESBBMEC NO NO YES

SCT/14/5page 76

O(iii) Other:

Some replies stated that the date of registration was the date of entry in the registry. The date of registration according to some other replies was the date on which the office announced the decision of registration.

SCT/14/5page 77



Respondingcountries/Regional IP offices

P. Proof of acquired distinctiveness Q. Grounds for refusal based on irregularities in classification

(i) Are certain marks registrable only with proof of acquired distinctiveness?

(ii) In the case of composite trademarks with non-distinctive words or elements, may the applicant be asked to disclaim such words or elements of his trademark?

(i) Can the application be refused if a term in the list of goods and service is too vague?

(ii) Does the IP office reclassify the list of goods and services?

Algeria NO YES NO YESArmenia NO YES NOAustralia YES NO YES YESAustria YES N/A YES YESBangladesh YES YESBelarus NO YES NO YESBrazil NO NO NO YESBulgaria YES YES NO YESCanada YES YES YES NOChile NO NO NO NOChina YES NO YES YESColombia YES NO NO NOCosta Rica N/A NO NO NOCroatia YES NO YES YESCzech Rep. YES NO YES YESDenmark YES YESDominicaEcuador YES YES YES NOEl Salvador NO NO NO YESEstonia YES YES NO YESFinland YES YES YESFrance NO NO YES YESGeorgia N/A YES NO YESGermany YES NO YES YESHungary YES NO YES YESIran (Islamic Rep. of) NO YES YES YESIreland YES YES YESItalyJamaica YES NO YES YESJapan YES NO YES YESKyrgyzstan N/A YES NO YESLithuania YES YES NO YESMadagascar NO NO NO YESMalta YES YES NO YESMauritius NO YES YESMexico NO NO NO NOMonaco NO YES YES YES

SCT/14/5page 78









Morocco NO NO NO YESNew Zealand YES NO YES YESNorway NO YESOman YES YES YES YESPakistan YES YESPanama NO YES NO NOPeru YES YES NO YESPhilippines YES YES NO YESPortugal YES NO YES YESRep. of Korea YES NO YES YESRep. of Moldova YES YES NO NORomania NO YES YES YESRussian Federation YES YES NO YESSaint Lucia YES YES NO YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES YES NO YES

Singapore YES NOSlovakia YES NO YES NOSlovenia N/A NO NO YESSpain YES YESSri Lanka YES YES YES YESSudan N/A YES YES YESSwaziland YES YES NO YESSweden YES YESSwitzerland YES YESSyrian Arab Rep. YES NO NO YESThailand YES YES YES N/AThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

NO NO NO YES

Trinidad & Tobago YES YES YES YESTunisia NO NO NO NOTurkey NO NO NO NOUkraine YES NO YES YESUnited Kingdom NO NO YES YESUSA YES YES YES YESUruguay YES NO NO NOZambia YES YES YES NO

SCT/14/5page 79









OAPI NO NOBBMEC YES YES YES YES

P(i) If YES, please list them:

Most replies were very general stating that marks consisting wholly of a sign ordinarily used to indicate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, or other characteristic of goods or services, or the time of production of goods or rendering of services, would be registered only with proof of acquired distinctiveness. However, in one reply it was indicated that marks consisting of a single color and marks consisting only of numbers were registrable only with proof of acquired distinctiveness.

P(i) If YES, what are the criteria to prove the acquired distinctiveness:

Many replies emphasized that the public should recognize the sign as a mark of an enterprise but there were many ways to prove the acquired distinctiveness, such as results of opinion surveys. According to some replies evidence must show that the mark distinguished the goods or services at the date of application for registration. In one reply were mentioned exclusive and continuous use for five years and ownership of registration of the same mark for related goods/services and/or evidence showing a distinctiveness perception by the public.

SCT/14/5page 80

V. OPPOSITION PROCEEDINGS1. Opposition systems

A. Does the applicable registration system allow for ex parte opposition?(If NO, please skip to VI)


A. Does the applicable registration system allow for ex parte opposition?

A(i) Before the Registry/IP Office?

A(ii) Before a judicial body?

A(iii) Other

Algeria NO NO NO NOArmeniaAustralia YES YES NO YESAustria NO N/A N/A N/ABangladesh YES YES NO N/ABelarus NOBrazil YES NO NO NOBulgaria NOCanada YES YES NO NOChile YES YES NO NOChina NO YES NOColombia YES YES NO NOCosta Rica YES YES NO NOCroatia YES YES NO NOCzech Rep. YES YES NO NODenmark YES N/A N/ADominicaEcuador YES YES NO NOEl Salvador YES YES NO NOEstonia YES NO YES NOFinland YES YES NOFrance YES YES NO NOGeorgia YES YES YES NOGermany YES YESHungary NO YES NO NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YES YES YESIreland NOItaly YES YESJamaica YES YES N/A NOJapan YES YES NO NOKyrgyzstan YES NO YESLithuania YES YES NO N/AMadagascar NOMalta NOMauritius YES YES NO N/AMexico NOMonaco NOMorocco NONew Zealand YES YES NO NONorway YES YES NO NOOmanPakistan NOPanama YES NO YES N/APeru YES YES NO NOPhilippines NOPortugal YES YES NO NORep. of Korea YES YES NO NO

SCT/14/5page 81


A. Does the applicable registration system allow for ex parte opposition?(If NO, please skip to VI)


A. Does the applicable registration system allow for ex parte opposition?

A(i) Before the Registry/IP Office?

A(ii) Before a judicial body?

A(iii) Other

Rep. of Moldova YES YES YES NORomania YES YES NO NORussian Federation YES NO NO YESSaint Lucia YES YES NO N/ASaint Vincent & the Grenadines

YES YES NO NO

Singapore YESSlovakia YES YES NO NOSlovenia YES YESSpain YES YESri Lanka YES YES N./A N/ASudanSwaziland YES YESSweden YES YES YES N/ASwitzerland YES YES NO NOThailandThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES YES NO NO

Syrian Arab Rep.Thailand YES YES NO NOTrinidad & Tobago YES YES NO NOTunisiaTurkey YES YES NO NOUkraine YES YESUnited Kingdom YES YES NO NOUSA YES YES YES YESUruguay YES YESZambia YES YES YESOAPIBBM YES YESEC YES YES NO NO

A. If YES, are opposition proceedings available?

It was pointed out that the expression ex parte opposition appeared to be contradictory.

A(iii) If YES, please explain:

The replies generally indicated certain administrative appeal bodies.

SCT/14/5page 82


A(iv) Pre-registration (opposition to an application)


A(iv)(a) Before any examination

A(iv)(b) During examination

A(iv)(c) After the examination of formal requirements

Algeria NO NO NOArmeniaAustralia NO NO YESAustria N/A N/A N/ABangladesh NO NO NOBelarusBrazil NO NO YESBulgariaCanada NO NO NOChile NO NO YESChina NO NO NOColombia NO NO YESCosta Rica NO NO YESCroatia NO NO YESCzech Rep. NO NO NODenmark N/ADominicaEcuador NO NO YESEl Salvador NO NO YESEstonia NO NO NOFinland N/A N/A N/AFrance YESGeorgia NO NO NOGermany NO NO NOHungary NO YES YESIran (Islamic Rep. of) NO NO YESIrelandItaly YESJamaica NO YES YESJapan NO NO NOKyrgyzstan NO NO NOLithuania NO NO NOMadagascarMaltaMauritius NO NO NOMexicoMonacoMoroccoNew Zealand NO NO YESNorway N/A N/A N/AOmanPakistanPanama NO NO YESPeru NO NO YESPhilippinesPortugal YES NO YESRep. of Korea NO NO YESRep. of Moldova NO NO NO

SCT/14/5page 83




A(iv)(a) Before any examination

A(iv)(b) During examination

A(iv)(c) After the examination of formal requirements

Romania NO NO NORussian Federation NO NO YESSaint Lucia NO NO YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

NO NO NO

Singapore NO NO NOSlovakia NO NO NOSloveniaSpainSri Lanka NO NO NOSudanSwaziland NO NO YESSwedenSwitzerland NO NO NOThailand NO NO YESSyrian Arab Rep.Thailand NO NO YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

NO NO NO

Trinidad & Tobago NO NO NOTunisiaTurkey NO NO NOUkraine YESUnited Kingdom NO NO NOUSA YES YES NOUruguay YESZambia NO NO NOOAPI NO NOBBM YESEC NO NO NO

SCT/14/5page 84



Responding countries/RegionalIP offices

A(iv)(d) After examination of absolute grounds for refusal

A(iv)(e) After examination of relative grounds of refusal

A(v) Post-registration (opposition to a registration)

Algeria NO NOArmeniaAustralia YES YES NOAustria N/A N/A N/ABangladesh NO YESBelarusBrazil NO NO NOBulgariaCanada YES YES NOChile NO YES NOChina YES YES NOColombia NO NO NOCosta Rica YES YES NOCroatia YES NO NOCzech Rep. YES YES NODenmark N/A N/A YESDominicaEcuador NO NO NOEl Salvador YES YES NOEstonia NO YES NOFinland N/A N/A YESFrance NOGeorgia YES YES YESGermany NO N/A YESHungary YES NO NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YESIrelandItaly YES YESJamaica YES YES YESJapan NO NO YESKyrgyzstan YES YES YESLithuania NO NO YESMadagascarMaltaMauritius NO NO NOMexicoMonacoMoroccoNew Zealand YES YES NONorway N/A N/A YESOman YES NO NOPakistanPanama YES YES NOPeru NO NO NOPhilippinesPortugal NO NO NORep. of Korea YES YES NORep. of Moldova YES YES YES

SCT/14/5page 85



Responding countries/RegionalIP offices

A(iv)(d) After examination of absolute grounds for refusal

A(iv)(e) After examination of relative grounds of refusal

A(v) Post-registration (opposition to a registration)

Romania NO NO YESRussian Federation YES YES YESSaint Lucia YES YES NOSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES YES NO

Singapore NO NO NOSlovakia NO NO NOSlovenia YESSpainSri Lanka YES YES NOSudan NO NOSwaziland YES YESSweden N/A N/A YESSwitzerland NO NO YESSyrian Arab Rep.Thailand YES YES NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES NO NO

Trinidad & Tobago YES NO NOTunisia NO NO NOTurkey YES NO NOUkraine NOUnited Kingdom YES YES YESUSA YES YES NOUruguayZambia NO NO YESOAPI NO NOBBM YES N/A N/AEC YES NO NO

SCT/14/5page 86

V. OPPOSITION PROCEEDINGS2. Opposition period

A. What is the length of the opposition period?

Respondingcountries/RegionalIP offices

(i) 2 months (ii) 3 months (iii) More than 3 months

(iv) Are extensions available?

AlgeriaArmeniaAustralia NO YRS NO YESAustria N/A N/A N/A N/ABangladesh NO NO 4 months YESBelarusBrazil YES NO NO YESBulgariaCanada YES NO NO YESChile YES NOChina NO YES NO YESColombia N/A N/A N/A (30 days) YESCosta Rica YES NO NO NOCroatia NO YES NO NOCzech Rep. NO YES NO NODenmark YES NO NO N/ADominicaEcuador YES NO NO YESEl Salvador YES NO NO YESEstonia YES NO NO NOFinland YES NOFrance YES NO NO NOGeorgia NO YES 6 months NOGermany YES NOHungary NO YES NO NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) YESIreland YES NOItaly YES NOJamaica YES N/A N/A YESJapan YES NO NO NOKyrgyzstan NO YES YES YESLithuania NO YES NOMadagascarMaltaMauritius NO YES NO YESMexicoMonacoMoroccoNew Zealand YES YESNorway YES NO NO NOOman NOPakistan YES NO NO YESPanama YES NO NO NOPeru N/A N/A N/A NOPhilippinesPortugal YES NO NO YESRep. of Korea NO NO NO (30 days) NORep. of Moldova NO YES NO YES

SCT/14/5page 87

V. OPPOSITION PROCEEDINGS2. Opposition period

A. What is the length of the opposition period?


(i) 2 months (ii) 3 months (iii) More than 3 months

(iv) Are extensions available?

Romania NO YES NO NORussian Federation NO YES NO YESSaint Lucia YES YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES YES

Singapore YES NO NO YESSlovakia NO YES NO NOSlovenia YES NOSpain YES NOSri Lanka YES YESSudan NO NO YES NOSwaziland YES YESSweden YES YESSwitzerland NO YES NO NOSyrian Arab Rep.Thailand YES NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

NO YES NO NO

Trinidad & Tobago YES YESTunisia YES NO NO NOTurkey NO YES NO NOUkraine NO NO YES NOUnited Kingdom NO YES NO NOUSA NO NO NO YESUruguay NOZambia YES YESOAPI 6 monthsBBM YES NOEC NO YES NO NO

A(iii) If YES, please specify:

See the table.

A(iv) Please explain under what conditions:

Most of the respondents indicated that an extension to the opposition period could be requested upon show of proof of good cause or legitimate reason(s).

SCT/14/5page 88

V. OPPOSITION PROCEEDINGS3. Publication

A. Where is the application/registration published for opposition


(i) In a gazette (ii) On the IP office website

(iii) Both (i) and (ii)

(iv) Other

Algeria N/A N/A N/A N/AArmeniaAustralia YES YES YES NOAustria YES NO N/A NOBangladesh YES NO NO NOBelarusBrazil YES YES YES YESBulgariaCanada YES YES YESChile YESChina NO YES N/AColombia YES N/A N/A N/ACosta Rica NO NO NO YESCroatia YES NO NO NOCzech Rep. YES YES YES NODenmark YES YES YES NODominicaEcuador YES NO NO NOEl Salvador NO NO NO YESEstonia N/A N/A YES NOFinland YES NOFrance YES NO NOGeorgia YES YES YES NOGermany YES YESHungary YES NO NO NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) YESIreland YES YESItaly YESJamaica YES N/A N/A N/AJapan YES YES YES NOKyrgyzstan NO NO NO NOLithuania YES NO NO NOMadagascarMaltaMauritius YES NO NO NOMexicoMonacoMoroccoNew Zealand YESNorway YES YES YES NOOman YES NO NO YESPakistan YES NO NO NOPanama YES YES NOPeru YESPhilippinesPortugal YES NO NO NORep. of Korea NO YES NO NORep. of Moldova YES NO N/A N/A

SCT/14/5page 89


A. Where is the application/registration published for opposition


(i) In a gazette (ii) On the IP office website

(iii) Both (i) and (ii)

(iv) Other

Romania YES NORussian Federation YES NO NO NOSaint Lucia YES NOSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES YES

Singapore NO NO NO YESSlovakia YES NO NO NOSlovenia YESSpain YESSri Lanka YESSudan YES NO NO YESSwaziland YESSweden YES YES YES N/ASwitzerland YES NO NO YESSyrian Arab Rep.Thailand YES NO NO NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES YES YES

Trinidad & Tobago NO NO NO YESTunisia NO NO NO YESTurkey YES NO NO NOUkraineUnited Kingdom YES YES YES NOUSA YES YES YES NOUruguay YESZambia YESOAPI YESBBM YES YES YESEC YES YES NO YES

A(iv) If YES, please explain:

This question was not responded to.

SCT/14/5page 90



B. Please describe what is the frequency of the publication

C. Indicate which publication is “official”(i.e. has legal effect)

AlgeriaArmeniaAustralia Weekly Official JournalAustria Monthly GazetteBangladesh GazetteBelarusBrazil Weekly GazetteBulgariaCanada Weekly Official JournalChileChina Weekly Official journalColombia Monthly GazetteCosta Rica Twice a week GazetteCroatia Every 2 months GazetteCzech Rep. Once a month GazetteDenmark Weekly TM Gazette (online version only)DominicaEcuador Monthly IP GazetteEl Salvador 3 times every 15 days Official journalEstonia Monthly TM GazetteFinland Twice a month TM GazetteFrance Weekly Official IP Bulletin;

WIPO Gazette for International MarksGeorgia Twice a month Official IP BulletinGermany Gazette: Weekly

TM register: DailyGazette

Hungary Monthly Official journalIran (Islamic Rep. of)Ireland Fortnightly Journal and online web versionItaly At least once a month Bulletin and website if notice has legal effectsJamaica Gazette: Weekly

TM’s are published monthly orevery 2 months

Every publication

Japan Weekly TM Gazette (CD-ROM)KyrgyzstanLithuania Once a month Official State Patent Bureau BulletinMadagascarMaltaMauritius Weekly GazetteMexicoMonacoMoroccoNew Zealand Monthly GazetteNorway Weekly TM GazetteOman Once in daily newspaper Official GazettePakistan GazettePanama Monthly IP Bulletin

Peru

SCT/14/5page 91



B. Please describe what is the frequency of the publication

C. Indicate which publication is “official”(i.e. has legal effect)

PhilippinesPortugal Monthly Official JournalRep. of Korea Every day on IP website IP websiteRep. of Moldova Monthly Official IP BulletinRomania Monthly Official IP BulletinRussian Federation Twice a month Official BulletinSaint Lucia Weekly GazetteSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

Gazette; Official Journal; Electronic Publication

Singapore Once or twice a week TM JournalSlovakia Monthly Official Journal of the IP OfficeSlovenia Every 2 months IP Office Official JournalSpain Every 15 days Official JournalSri Lanka Weekly Government GazetteSudan Quarterly Official GazetteSwaziland Monthly Official TM GazetteSweden Once a week TM law does not specifySwitzerland Daily in FOSC

Monthly in WIPO GazetteFOSC and WIPO Gazette

Syrian Arab Rep.Thailand 4 volumes per monthThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

Every 3 months IP Office Official Gazette

Trinidad & Tobago Every 2 weeks Daily NewspaperTunisia Up to 12 months Official INORPI BulletinTurkey Monthly Official TM BulletinUkraineUnited Kingdom Weekly Publication on the internetUSA Weekly Official Gazette of USPTOUruguay Monthly IP BulletinZambia Monthly Patent and TM JournalOAPI Every 3 months Official IP BulletinBBM Monthly GazetteEC Weekly

SCT/14/5page 92


D. What is the starting date of the opposition period?


(i) The date of the publication of the application for registration

(ii) The date of the publication of the registration

(iii) Other

Algeria N/A N/AArmeniaAustralia YES NOAustria N/A N/ABangladesh YES NOBelarusBrazil YES YES N/ABulgariaCanada YES NOChile YESChina YES NOColombia YES N/ACosta Rica YES NOCroatia YES NOCzech Rep. YES NODenmark NO N/ADominicaEcuador YES NOEl Salvador YES NOEstonia YES NOFinland NO YESFrance YES NO YESGeorgia YES NOGermany YESHungary YES NO NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YESIreland YESItaly YES YESJamaica YES NO YESJapan NO YESKyrgyzstan NO NO YESLithuania NO YESMadagascarMaltaMauritius YES NOMexicoMonacoMoroccoNew Zealand YES NONorwayOman YES NOPakistan YES NO YESPanama NO NO YESPeru YESPhilippinesPortugal YES NO NORep. of Korea YES NORep. of Moldova YES NO

SCT/14/5page 93


D. What is the starting date of the opposition period?


(i) The date of the publication of the application for registration

(ii) The date of the publication of the registration

(iii) Other

Romania NO YESRussian Federation NO YESSaint Lucia YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES YES NO

SingaporeSlovakia YES NOSlovenia YESSpain YESSri Lanka YESSudan NO YESSwaziland YESSweden NO NOSwitzerland NO YESSyrian Arab Rep.Thailand YES NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES NO

Trinidad & Tobago YESTunisia YES NOTurkey YES NOUkraineUnited Kingdom YES NOUSA YES NOUruguay YES NOZambia YES NOOAPI NO YESBBM YES YESEC YES NO

D(iii) If YES, please explain:

One reply mentioned application-filing date as the starting date of the opposition period. Another reply stated that for administrative purposes the office considered the date of receipt of the gazette as the starting date of the opposition period since the date between the publication of the gazette and its receipt by the office varied.

SCT/14/5page 94

V. OPPOSITION PROCEEDINGS4. Entitlement to file an oppositionA. Who may invoke an opposition?


(i) Any person

(ii) Anyone showing a legitimate interest

(iii) Any competent authorities (IP offices, others)

(iv) Other

AlgeriaArmeniaAustralia YES N/A YESAustria N/A N/A N/ABangladesh YES YES YESBelarusBrazil YES YES N/A N/ABulgariaCanada YES N/A N/AChile YESChina YESColombia NO YES NOCosta Rica NO YES YESCroatia NO NO NO YESCzech Rep. NO YES N/ADenmark YES YES YESDominicaEcuador NO YES NOEl Salvador NO YES NOEstonia NO YES NOFinland YESFrance NO NO NO YESGeorgia NO YES N/AGermany YESHungary NO NO NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) NO YES YESIreland YESItaly YESJamaica YES N/A N/A N/AJapan YESKyrgyzstan YES YESLithuania YES YES YESMadagascarMaltaMauritius YES YES YESMexicoMonacoMoroccoNew Zealand YESNorway YES YESOman NO YES NOPakistan YES YES YES N/APanama YESPeru YESPhilippinesPortugal NO YES NO NORep. of Korea YES N/A N/ARep. of Moldova YES YES YES

SCT/14/5page 95

V. OPPOSITION PROCEEDINGS4. Entitlement to file an oppositionA. Who may invoke an opposition?


(i) Any person

(ii) Anyone showing a legitimate interest

(iii) Any competent authorities (IP offices, others)

(iv) Other

Romania NO YESRussian Federation YES YES NO NOSaint Lucia NO YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES YES N/A N/A

Singapore YESSlovakia NO YES NOSlovenia YESSpain YESSri Lanka YESSudan NO YES NOSwaziland YESSweden YES N/A N/ASwitzerland NO NO NOSyrian Arab Rep.Thailand YES YES NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

NO YES NO NO

Trinidad & Tobago YES YES YESTunisia NO NO NOTurkey YES YES YESUkraine YESUnited Kingdom YES NO YESUSA NO NO YES YESUruguay YES N/A YESZambia YES YES NOOAPI YES YES YESBBMEC NO NO NO YES

A(iii):

Almost without exception, the respondents indicated that a competent authority was any interested governmental body or authority.

A(iv) If YES, please explain:

Some replies indicated that holders of prior rights or any person who believed to be damaged by registration of the proposed mark was entitled to file an opposition.

SCT/14/5page 96

V. OPPOSITION PROCEEDINGS5. Possible grounds for opposition



B. Signs which do not satisfy other requirement of the definition of a mark


Algeria N/A N/A N/AArmeniaAustralia YES NO YESAustria N/A N/A N/ABangladeshBelarusBrazil YES YES YESBulgariaCanada YES YES YESChile YES YES YESChina YES YES YESColombia YES YES YESCosta Rica NO NO YESCroatia NO NO NOCzech Rep. NO NO NODenmarkDominicaEcuador YES YES YESEl Salvador YES YES YESEstonia YES YES YESFinland YES YES YESFrance NO NO NOGeorgia YES YES YESGermany NO NO NOHungary NO NO NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) NO NO YESIreland YES YES YESItaly NO NO NOJamaica YES YES YESJapan YES YES YESKyrgyzstan YES YES YESLithuania YES YES YESMadagascarMaltaMauritius YES YES YESMexicoMonacoMoroccoNew Zealand YES YES YESNorwayOman YES YES YESPakistan YES YES YESPanama YES YESPeru YES YES YESPhilippinesPortugal YES YES YESRep. of Korea YES YES YESRep. of Moldova YES YES YESRomania YES YES YES

SCT/14/5page 97




B. Signs which do not satisfy other requirement of the definition of a mark


Russian Federation YES YES YESSaint Lucia YES YES YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES NO N/A

SingaporeSlovakia YES YES YESSlovenia NO NO NOSpain YES YES YESSri Lanka YES YES YESSudan YES YES YESSwaziland YES YES YESSweden YESSwitzerland NO NO NOSyrian Arab Rep.Thailand YES YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

NO NO NO

Trinidad & Tobago YES YES YESTunisia NO NO NOTurkey YES YES YESUkraine YES N/A YESUnited Kingdom YES YES YESUSA YES YES YESUruguay YES YES YESZambia NO NO NOOAPIBBM NO NO NOEC NO NO NO

SCT/14/5page 98



D. Descriptive signs E. Signs which have become generic

F. Generic terms

Algeria N/A N/A N/AArmeniaAustralia YES YES YESAustria N/A N/A N/ABangladesh YES YESBelarusBrazil YES YES YESBulgariaCanada YES YES YESChile YES YES YESChina YES YES N/AColombia YES YES YESCosta Rica YES YES YESCroatia NO NO NOCzech Rep. NO NO NODenmark YES YESDominicaEcuador YES YES YESEl Salvador YES YES YESEstonia YES YES YESFinland YES YES YESFrance NO NO NOGeorgia YES YES YESGermany NO NO NOHungary NO NO NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YES YESIreland YES YESItaly NO NO NOJamaica YES YES YESJapan YES YES YESKyrgyzstan YES YES N/ALithuania YES YES YESMadagascarMaltaMauritius YES YES YESMexicoMonacoMoroccoNew Zealand YES YES YESNorway YES YESOman YES YES NOPakistan YES YES YESPanama YES YES YESPeru YES YES YESPhilippinesPortugal YES YES YESRep. of Korea YES YES YESRep. of Moldova YES YES YESRomania YES YES YES

SCT/14/5page 99



D. Descriptive signs E. Signs which have become generic

F. Generic terms

Russian Federation YES YES YESSaint Lucia NO YES YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

N/A N/A N/A

SingaporeSlovakia YES YES YESSlovenia NO NO NOSpain YES YES YESSri Lanka YES YES YESSudan YES YES N/ASwaziland YES YES YESSweden YESSwitzerland NO NO NOSyrian Arab Rep.Thailand YES YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

NO NO NO

Trinidad & Tobago YES YES YESTunisia NO NO NOTurkey YES YES YESUkraine YES YES YESUnited Kingdom YES YES NOUSA YES YES YESUruguay YES YES YESZambia NO NO NOOAPIBBM NO NO NOEC NO NO NO

F. If YES, describe how the term “generic” is understood:

Most of the respondents described the term “generic” as referring to a sign not having a distinctive quality in respect of products or services to which it related.

SCT/14/5page 100



G. Signs contrary to morality or public order


I. Signs contrary to Article 6ter

Algeria N/A N/A N/AArmeniaAustralia YES YES YESAustria N/A N/A N/ABangladeshBelarusBrazil YES YES YESBulgariaCanada YES YES YESChile YES YES YESChina YES YES YESColombia YES YES YESCosta Rica YES YES YESCroatia NO NO NOCzech Rep. NO NO NODenmarkDominicaEcuador YES YES YESEl Salvador YES YES YESEstonia YES YES YESFinland YES YES YESFrance NO NO NOGeorgia YES YES YESGermany NO NO NOHungary NO NO NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YES YESIreland YES YES YESItaly NO NO NOJamaica YES YES YESJapan YES YES YESKyrgyzstan YES YES YESLithuania YES YES YESMadagascarMaltaMauritius YES YES YESMexicoMonacoMoroccoNew Zealand YES YES YESNorwayOman YES YES YESPakistan YES YES YESPanama YES YES YESPeru YES YESPhilippinesPortugal YES YES YESRep. of Korea YES YES YESRep. of Moldova YES YES YESRomania YES YES YES

SCT/14/5page 101



G. Signs contrary to morality or public order


I. Signs contrary to Article 6ter

Russian Federation YES YES YESSaint Lucia YES YES YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES YES YES

SingaporeSlovakia YES YES YESSlovenia NO NO NOSpain YES YES YESSri Lanka YES YES YESSudan YES YES YESSwaziland YES YES YESSweden YES YES YESSwitzerland NO NO NOSyrian Arab Rep.Thailand YES YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

NO NO NO

Trinidad & Tobago YES YES YESTunisia NO NO NOTurkey YES YES YESUkraine YES YES YESUnited Kingdom YES YES YESUSA YES YES YESUruguay YES YES YESZambia YES YES YESOAPI YESBBM NO NO NOEC NO NO NO

SCT/14/5page 102



J. Signs benefiting protection from other international conventions (Red Cross, Olympic symbols)

K(i) Signs protected by national laws: royal emblems

K(ii) Signs protected by national laws: signs of indigenous people and local communities

Algeria N/A N/A N/AArmeniaAustralia YES NO NOAustria N/A N/A N/ABangladeshBelarusBrazil YES YES YESBulgariaCanada YES YES NOChile YES YES YESChina YES N/A NOColombia YES YES YESCosta Rica YES NO NOCroatia NO N/A NOCzech Rep. NO NO NODenmarkDominicaEcuador YES YES YESEl Salvador YES N/A YESEstonia YES NO YESFinland YESFrance NO NO NOGeorgia YES YES YESGermany NO NO NOHungary NO NO YESIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YES YESIreland YESItaly NO NO NOJamaica YES YES YESJapan YES YES N/AKyrgyzstan YES N/A N/ALithuania YES NO NOMadagascarMaltaMauritius YES YES YESMexicoMonacoMoroccoNew Zealand YES YES NONorwayOman YES YES YESPakistan YES YES YESPanama YES YES YESPeru YES NO YESPhilippinesPortugal YES YES YESRep. of Korea YES N/A N/A

SCT/14/5page 103



J. Signs benefiting protection from other international conventions (Red Cross, Olympic symbols)

K(i) Signs protected by national laws: royal emblems

K(ii) Signs protected by national laws: signs of indigenous people and local communities

Rep. of Moldova YES YES YESRomania NO NO NORussian Federation YES YES YESSaint Lucia NO YES NOSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES YES N/A

SingaporeSlovakia YES YES YESSlovenia NO NO NOSpain YES YESSri Lanka YES YES YESSudan YES YES YESSwaziland YES YES YESSweden YESSwitzerland NO NO NOSyrian Arab Rep.Thailand YES YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

NO NO NO

Trinidad & Tobago YES YES NOTunisia NO NO NOTurkey YES YES YESUkraine YES NO NOUnited Kingdom YES YES NOUSA YES YES YESUruguay YES YES YESZambia YES YES N/AOAPIBBM NO NO NOEC NO NO NO

SCT/14/5page 104


K. Signs protected by national laws


K(iii) Other L. Well-known/famous marks having a reputation

M. Appellations of origin/protected geographical indications

Algeria N/A N/A N/AArmeniaAustralia YES YES YESAustria N/A N/A N/ABangladesh YESBelarusBrazil YES YES YESBulgariaCanada YES NO YESChile YES YESChina YES YES N/AColombia NO YES YESCosta Rica NO YES YESCroatia NO YES YESCzech Rep. NO YES YESDenmark YESDominicaEcuador YES YES YESEl Salvador YES YES YESEstonia YES YES YESFinland YES YESFrance NO YES NOGeorgia YES YES YESGermany NO YES NOHungary NO YES NOIran (Islamic Rep. of)Ireland YES YESItaly NO NO NOJamaica YES YES YESJapan YES YES YESKyrgyzstan NO YES YESLithuania YES YES YESMadagascarMaltaMauritius YES YESMexicoMonacoMoroccoNew Zealand YES YES YESNorwayOman YES YES YESPakistan YES YES YESPanama YES YES YESPeru YES YES YESPhilippinesPortugal YES YES YESRep. of Korea N/A YES YESRep. of Moldova YES YES YES

SCT/14/5page 105


K. Signs protected by national laws


K(iii) Other L. Well-known/famous marks having a reputation

M. Appellations of origin/protected geographical indications

Romania NO YES YESRussian Federation YES YES YESSaint Lucia NO YES NOSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES NO YES

Singapore YESSlovakia YES YES YESSlovenia YES YESSpain YES YES YESSri Lanka YES YES YESSudan YES YES N/ASwaziland YESSweden YESSwitzerland NO NO NOSyrian Arab Rep.Thailand YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES YES

Trinidad & Tobago NO YES YESTunisia NO YES NOTurkey YES YES YESUkraine YES YESUnited Kingdom YES YES YESUSA N/A YES YESUruguay YES YESZambia N/A N/A N/AOAPI YESBBM NO YES NOEC NO YES YES

SCT/14/5page 106






Algeria N/AArmeniaAustralia NO NO NOAustria N/A N/A N/ABangladeshBelarusBrazil YES YES YESBulgariaCanada YES NO NOChile YES YESChina N/A YES YESColombia YES YES NOCosta Rica YES YES NOCroatia YES YES NOCzech Rep. YES YES NODenmarkDominicaEcuador YES YES NOEl Salvador YES YES NOEstonia YES YES YESFinland YES YES YESFrance NO NO NOGeorgia YES YES N/AGermany NO NO NOHungary YES YES NOIran (Islamic Rep. of)Ireland YES YES YESItaly YES YES NOJamaica YES YES YESJapan N/A YES N/AKyrgyzstan YES YES N/ALithuania YES YES NOMadagascarMaltaMauritius YES YES YESMexicoMonacoMoroccoNew Zealand YES YES YESNorwayOman YES YES N/APakistan YES YES YESPanama YES YES YESPeru YES YES NOPhilippinesPortugal YES YES NORep. of Korea NO YES NORep. of Moldova YES YES YESRomania YES YES NO

SCT/14/5page 107






Russian Federation YES YES NOSaint Lucia NO NO YESSingaporeSlovakia YES YES YESSlovenia N/A YES NOSpain YES YESSri Lanka YES YES YESSudan NO YES YESSwazilandSweden YES YESSwitzerland NO NO NOSyrian Arab Rep.Thailand YES YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES NO NO

Trinidad & Tobago N/A NO NOTunisia NO NO NOTurkey YES YES YESUkraine YES YES NOUnited Kingdom YES YES YESUSA YES YES YESUruguay YES YES YESZambia NO YES NOOAPIBBM NO NO NOEC YES NO NO

SCT/14/5page 108



Q. An identical mark registered or applied for by another person in respect of identical goods or services

R. An identical mark registered or applied for by another person in respect of similar goods or services

S. A similar mark registered or applied for by another person in respect of identical goods or services

Algeria N/A N/A N/AArmeniaAustralia YES YES YESAustria N/A N/A N/ABangladeshBelarusBrazil YES YES YESBulgariaCanada YES YES YESChile YES YES YESChina YES YES YESColombia YES YES YESCosta Rica YES NO YESCroatia YES YES YESCzech Rep. YES YES YESDenmarkDominicaEcuador YES YES YESEl Salvador YES YES YESEstonia YES YES YESFinland YES YES YESFrance YES YES YESGeorgia YES YES YESGermany YES YES YESHungary YES YES YESIran (Islamic Rep. of)Ireland YES YES YESItaly YES YES YESJamaica YES YES YESJapan YES YES YESKyrgyzstan YES YES YESLithuania YES YES YESMadagascarMaltaMauritius YES YES YESMexicoMonaco YES YES YESMoroccoNew Zealand YES YES YESNorwayOman YES YES YESPakistan YES YES YESPanama YES YES YESPeru YES YES YESPhilippinesPortugal YES YES YESRep. of Korea YES YES YES

SCT/14/5page 109



Q. An identical mark registered or applied for by another person in respect of identical goods or services

R. An identical mark registered or applied for by another person in respect of similar goods or services

S. A similar mark registered or applied for by another person in respect of identical goods or services

Rep. of MoldovaRomania YES YES YESRussian Federation YES YES YESSaint Lucia YES YES YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES YES YES

SingaporeSlovakia YES YES YESSlovenia YES YES YESSpain YES YES YESSri Lanka YES YES YESSudan YES YES YESSwaziland NO NO NOSwedenSwitzerland YES YES YESSyrian Arab Rep.Thailand YES YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES YES YES

Trinidad & Tobago YES YES YESTunisia YES YES YESTurkey YES YES YESUkraine YES YES YESUnited Kingdom YES YES YESUSA YES YES YESUruguay YES YES YESZambia YES YES YESOAPI YES YES YESBBM YES YES YESEC YES YES YES

SCT/14/5page 110



T. A similar mark registered or applied for by another person in respect of similar goods or services

U. Industrial designs V. Copyrights

Algeria N/AArmeniaAustralia YES NO YESAustria N/A N/A N/ABangladeshBelarusBrazil YES YES YESBulgariaCanada YES NO NOChile YES NO YESChina YES YES YESColombia YES YES YESCosta Rica NO YES YESCroatia YES YES YESCzech Rep. YES YES YESDenmarkDominicaEcuador YES YES YESEl Salvador YES YES YESEstonia YES YES YESFinland YES YES YESFrance YES NO NOGeorgia YES YES N/AGermany YES NO NOHungary YES YES YESIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YESIreland YES YES YESItaly YES NO NOJamaica YES YES YESJapan YES NO NOKyrgyzstan YES YES YESLithuania YES YESMadagascarMaltaMauritius YES YES YESMexicoMonaco YES YES YESMoroccoNew Zealand YES NO NONorwayOman YES YES YESPakistan YES YES YESPanama YES YES YESPeru YES YES YESPhilippinesPortugal YES YES YESRep. of Korea YES NO NORep. of Moldova

SCT/14/5page 111



T. A similar mark registered or applied for by another person in respect of similar goods or services

U. Industrial designs V. Copyrights

Romania YES YES YESRussian Federation YES YES YESSaint Lucia YES NO NOSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES NO NO

SingaporeSlovakia YES YES YESSlovenia YES YES YESSpain YES YES YESSri Lanka YES YES YESSudan YES NO NOSwaziland YES YESSweden YESSwitzerland YES NO NOSyrian Arab Rep.Thailand YES YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES YES YES

Trinidad & Tobago YES NO NOTunisia YES NO NOTurkey YES YES YESUkraine YES YES YESUnited Kingdom YES YES YESUSA YES YES YESUruguay YES YES YESZambia NO NO YESOAPIBBM YES NO NOEC YES NO NO

T. Please explain, whether a likelihood of confusion is necessary in cases R to T:

For the great majority of respondents, likelihood of confusion was necessary in all cases.

SCT/14/5page 112



W. Personal names X. Collective, guarantee or certification marks

Y. Unregistered trademarks

Z. Other

AlgeriaArmeniaAustralia NO YES NO YESAustria N/A N/A N/A N/ABangladesh YESBelarusBrazil YES YES YES YESBulgariaCanada YES YES YES N/AChile YES NO YESChina NO YES YESColombia YES YES NO YESCosta Rica YES YES YES NOCroatia YES YES NO YESCzech Rep. YES YES YES YESDenmark YESDominicaEcuador YES YES YES YESEl Salvador YES YES YES N/AEstonia YES YES NO YESFinland YES YES YESFrance NO YES YES NOGeorgia YES YES NO YESGermany NO NO NO YESHungary YES YES YES NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YES NOIreland YES YES YESItaly YES NO NO YESJamaica YES YES YES YESJapan YES YES N/A YESKyrgyzstan NO YES NO NOLithuania YES NO NOMadagascarMaltaMauritius YES YES YESMexicoMonaco YES YES NO YESMoroccoNew Zealand YES YES YES YESNorwayOman YES YES YES N/APakistan YES YES YES N/APanama YES YESPeru YES YES YES YESPhilippinesPortugal YES YES YES YESRep. of Korea NO NO NO NORep. of MoldovaRomania YES YES NO NO

SCT/14/5page 113



W. Personal names X. Collective, guarantee or certification marks

Y. Unregistered trademarks

Z. Other

Russian Federation YES YES NO NOSaint Lucia NO YES NO N/ASt. Vincent & the Grenadines

NO YES NO YES

Singapore YESSlovakia YES YES YES NOSlovenia YES YES YESSpain YES YES YESSri Lanka YES YES YES YESSudan YES N/A YES N/ASwaziland N/A N/A YESSweden YES YESSwitzerland NO YES YES NOSyrian Arab Rep.Thailand YES YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES YES YES

Trinidad & Tobago NO YES NO NOTunisia NO YES NO NOTurkey YES YES YES N/AUkraine NO YES YES N/AUnited Kingdom YES YES YES YESUSA YES YES YES YESUruguay YES YESZambia YES N/A NO N/AOAPI YESBBM NO YES NOEC NO YES YES YES

Z. If YES, please list them:

The respondents who replied to this sub-question almost invariably indicated a ground that had already been mentioned in an earlier sub-question. More generally, some respondents made references to the grounds stated in the Paris Convention.

SCT/14/5page 114

V. OPPOSITION PROCEEDINGS6. Miscellaneous


A. In opposition proceedings, what factors are considered in determining likelihood of confusion?

B. Is it possible to reach settlement agreements in opposition proceedings?

C. Is each party held responsible for his/her costs?

Algeria N/A N/AArmeniaAustralia YES NOAustria N/A N/ABangladesh YES YESBelarusBrazil YES YESBulgariaCanada YES YESChile NO YESChina YES NOColombia NO YESCosta Rica YES YESCroatia YES NOCzech Rep. YES YESDenmark YES YESDominicaEcuador YES YESEl Salvador YES N/AEstonia YES YESFinland N/A YESFrance YES YESGeorgia YES YESGermany YES YESHungary YES NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YESIreland YESItaly YESJamaica YES NOJapan YES YESKyrgyzstan NO YESLithuania YES NOMadagascarMaltaMauritius YES YESMexicoMonacoMoroccoNew Zealand YES NONorwayOman YES YESPakistan YES YESPanama YES NOPeru YES N/APhilippinesPortugal YES YESRep. of Korea YES YESRep. of Moldova YES YES

SCT/14/5page 115



A. In opposition proceedings, what factors are considered in determining likelihood of confusion?

B. Is it possible to reach settlement agreements in opposition proceedings?

C. Is each party held responsible for his/her costs?

Romania YES YESRussian Federation NO YESSaint Lucia YES NOSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

NO NO

Singapore YESSlovakia YES YESSlovenia YES YESSpain YES N/ASri Lanka YES NOSudan YES YESSwaziland YES YESSweden YES YESSwitzerland YES NOSyrian Arab Rep. YES YESThailand NO YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES NO

Trinidad & Tobago YES NOTunisia YES NOTurkey YES YESUkraine YES NOUnited Kingdom YES NOUSA YES YESUruguay NO YESZambia YES YESOAPI YES YESBBM YES YESEC YES YES

A. Please explain:

Almost all of the respondents indicated that an analysis of the sound, appearance and meaning of the marks as well as the similarity of the goods and services, the use of the goods and services together and the marketing and channels of trade of the goods and services, was made to determine likelihood of confusion. Actual confusion was also considered.

C. If NO, please explain:

The majority of those who responded indicated that the competent authority had the power to award costs. Some respondents added that the losing party could pay a share of or the entire costs.

SCT/14/5page 116



D. Does the losing party bear the entire cost of the opposition proceeding?

E. What is the average time it takes to issue a decision after an opposition proceeding is finished?

Algeria N/AArmeniaAustralia NO 3 monthsAustria N/ABangladesh YES 2 monthsBelarusBrazil NO 4 yearsBulgariaCanada NO 3 monthsChile NO 6 to 8 monthsChina Within 6 monthsColombia NO 6 monthsCosta Rica N/A 6 monthsCroatia NO 1 monthCzech Rep. NO 6 monthsDenmark NO 2 monthsDominicaEcuador NO 6 to 8 monthsEl Salvador N/A 2 monthsEstonia NO 5 daysFinland 6 to 8 monthsFrance NO 6 months at the latestGeorgia NO 5 to 14 daysGermany NO About 12 monthsHungary YESIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES Within 2 yearsIreland NO 8 weeksItaly NOJamaicaJapan NO About 11 months (from the opposition filing

to the issuance of decision)Kyrgyzstan NO 4 monthsLithuania NO Within 1 monthMadagascarMaltaMauritius NO As soon as possibleMexicoMonacoMoroccoNew Zealand NO 32 daysNorwayOman NO 3 to 6 monthsPakistan NOPanama YES ImmediatelyPeru NO 10 monthsPhilippinesPortugal NO 12 months Rep. of Korea NO 1 yearRep. of Moldova NO Within 3 months

SCT/14/5page 117



D. Does the losing party bear the entire cost of the opposition proceeding?

E. What is the average time it takes to issue a decision after an opposition proceeding is finished?

Romania NO 1 monthRussian Federation NOSaint Lucia NO 6 months to 1 yearSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

NO

Singapore 3 months maximumSlovakia NO 1 yearSlovenia N/A 18 monthsSpain NOSri Lanka NO More than 3 monthsSudan N/A 1 monthSwaziland YES About 9 monthsSweden NO 18 monthsSwitzerland YES 3 to 4 monthsSyrian Arab Rep. YESThailand NO 6 monthsThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES About 1 month

Trinidad & Tobago YES About 2 monthsTunisia NO 6 to 8 monthsTurkey NO 3 monthsUkraine N/AUnited Kingdom NO 27 weeksUSA NO Approximately 24 weeksUruguay N/A Depends on the caseZambia NO As soon as the opposition is determinedOAPI NOBBM YESEC YES 6 months to a year

D. If NOT, please explain how the costs are dealt with:

The majority of those who responded indicated that the competent authority had the power to award costs. Some respondents added that the losing party could pay a share of or the entire costs.

SCT/14/5page 118

VI. APPEALS1. Appeal Procedure

A. Is there a procedure for appeals?



(i) Before the registry/IP office

(ii) Before an administrative body

(iii) Before a Court

Algeria YES NO NO YESArmenia YES YES YES YESAustralia YES NO NO YESAustria YES YES NO YESBangladesh YES NO NO YESBelarus YES YES YES YESBrazil YES YES NO NOBulgaria YES YES NO NOCanada YES NO NO YESChile YES YES YES YESChina YES NO NO YESColombia YES YES N/A N/ACosta Rica YES YES YES YESCroatia YES NO NO YESCzech Rep. YES YES NO NODenmarkDominicaEcuador YES YES YES YESEl Salvador YES NO YES NOEstonia YES NO YES YESFinland YES NO YESFrance YES NO NO YESGeorgia YES YES NO YESGermany YES YES YESHungary YES NO NO YESIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES NO NO YESIreland YES NO NO YESItaly YES NO NO YESJamaica YES YES YES YESJapan YES YES NO NOKyrgyzstan YES NO NO YESLithuania YES YESMadagascar YES NO NO YESMalta YES NOMauritius YES NO YES YESMexico YES YES NO YESMonaco YES NO NO YESMorocco YES NO NO YESNew Zealand YES NO NO YESNorway YES NO YES YESOman YES NO NO YESPakistan YES NO NO YESPanama YES YESPeru YES YESPhilippines YES YES YES YESPortugal YES NO NO YESRep. of Korea YES NO YES NORep. of Moldova YES YES YES YES

SCT/14/5page 119

VI. APPEALS1. Appeal Procedure




(i) Before the registry/IP office

(ii) Before an administrative body

(iii) Before a Court

Romania YES NO NO YESRussian Federation YES NO YES YESSaint Lucia YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES NO NO YES

SingaporeSlovakia YES YES NO NOSlovenia NOSpain YES YESSri Lanka YES NO NO YESSudan YES NO NO YESSwaziland YES YESSwedenSwitzerland YES NO YES YESSyrian Arab Rep. YES YES YES YESThailand YES NO YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES NO YES NO

Trinidad & Tobago YES NO NO YESTunisia YES NO NO YESTurkey YES YES NO NOUkraine YES YES YESUnited Kingdom YES NO NO YESUSA YES YES YES YESUruguay YES YESZambia YES YES N/A YESOAPI YES NO YES NOBBM YES NO NO YESEC YES YES NO NO

SCT/14/5page 120

VI. APPEALS2. Appeal Period

A. Within which period of time appeal is possible?


(i) 2 months after the registration

(ii) 3 months after the registration

(iii) More than 3 months after the registration

Algeria YESArmenia NO NO NOAustralia N/A N/A N/AAustria N/A N/A N/ABangladesh NO NO YESBelarus YESBrazil NO NO NOBulgaria NO NO NOCanada NO NO NOChileChina NO NO NOColombia N/A N/A N/ACosta Rica NO NO NOCroatia NO NO NOCzech Rep. NO NO NODenmarkDominicaEcuador NO NO NOEl Salvador N/A N/A N/AEstonia NO NO NOFinlandFrance NO NO NOGeorgia NO NO NOGermanyHungary NO NO NOIran (Islamic Rep. of)Ireland N/A N/A N/AItalyJamaicaJapan NO NO NOKyrgyzstan NO NO YESLithuania NO NO NOMadagascar NO NO NOMaltaMauritiusMexico NO YES NOMonaco NO NO YESMorocco YESNew Zealand N/A N/A N/ANorway YES NO NOOman NO NO NOPakistan NO NO NOPanamaPeru N/A N/A N/APhilippines NO NO NOPortugal NO NO NORep. of Korea N/A N/A N/ARep. of Moldova NO YES YES

SCT/14/5page 121


A. Within which period of time appeal is possible?


(i) 2 months after the registration

(ii) 3 months after the registration

(iii) More than 3 months after the registration

Romania YESRussian Federation NO NO YESSaint LuciaSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

NO NO NO

SingaporeSlovakia NO NO NO (30 days)SpainSri LankaSudan NO NO NOSwazilandSwedenSwitzerland NO NO NOSyrian Arab Rep. YES YESThailand NO NO NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

NO NO NO

Trinidad & TobagoTunisia NO NO NOTurkey NO NO NOUkraineUnited Kingdom NO NO NOUSA N/A N/A N/AUruguayZambia N/A N/A N/AOAPI YESBBMEC

A(iii) Please explain:

This question was not responded to.

SCT/14/5page 122


A. Within which period of time is appeal possible?


(iv) 2 months after the receipt of the notification of the decision

(v) 3 months after the receipt of the notification of the decision

(vi) More than 3 months after the receipt of the notification of the decision

AlgeriaArmenia YES NO YESAustralia N/A N/A N/AAustria YES N/A N/ABangladeshBelarus YESBrazil NO NO NOBulgaria NO YES NOCanada YES NO NOChileChina NO NO NOColombia N/A N/A N/ACosta Rica NO NO NOCroatia NO NO NOCzech Rep. NO NO NODenmarkDominicaEcuador NO NO NOEl Salvador NO NO NOEstonia NO NO NOFinland YESFrance NO NO NOGeorgia NO YES YESGermanyHungary NO NO NOIran (Islamic Rep. of)Ireland N/A YES N/AItalyJamaica N/A YES N/AJapan NO NO NOKyrgyzstan NO NO YESLithuania NO YES NOMadagascar NO NO NOMaltaMauritiusMexico NO YES NOMonaco NO NO NOMoroccoNew Zealand N/A N/A N/ANorwayOman NO NO NOPakistan YES NO NOPanamaPeru N/A N/A N/APhilippines NO NO YESPortugal NO NORep. of Korea NO NO NORep. of Moldova NO YES NO

SCT/14/5page 123


A. Within which period of time is appeal possible?


(iv) 2 months after the receipt of the notification of the decision

(v) 3 months after the receipt of the notification of the decision

(vi) More than 3 months after the receipt of the notification of the decision

Romania YESRussian Federation NO NO NOSaint LuciaSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

NO NO

SingaporeSlovakia NO NO NOSpainSri LankaSudan NO NO YES (6months)Swaziland NOSwedenSwitzerland NO NO NOSyrian Arab Rep. NOThailand MO YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

NO NO NO

Trinidad & Tobago NOTunisia NO NOTurkey NO NO NOUkraine YESUnited Kingdom NO NOUSA N/A N/A NOUruguay N/AZambia N/A N/AOAPI N/ABBM YESEC YES

A(vi) Please explain:

Respondents generally indicated that the appeal period was six months after receipt of notification of decision. However, one reply stated that the appeal period was 20 working days after the day on which the decision was issued.

SCT/14/5page 124


A. Within which period of time is appeal possible?3. Entitlement to file an appeal


A(vii) Other time limit A(viii) Can this period be extended?

3A Who is entitled to file an appeal?

AlgeriaArmenia NO YESAustralia YES YESAustria N/A YES Applicant onlyBangladeshBelarus NO YESBrazil YES YES HolderBulgaria NO NO HolderCanada NO YESChile YES NOChina NO YES Parties concernedColombia YES NO Applicant or opponentCosta Rica YES NO Holder and opponentCroatia YES NO Holder, applicant, opponentCzech Rep. YES NODenmarkDominicaEcuador NO NO Holder, IP Office and opponentEl Salvador YES NO Person aggrieved by the

decisionEstonia NO NO ApplicantFinland Applicant, losing partyFrance YES YES Anyone who has an interestGeorgia NO NO Applicant, holder, opponentGermany YES NO Holder or opponentHungary YES NO Any partyIran (Islamic Rep. of) NO NO Holder, interested partyIreland No restriction on who may fileItaly YES NO HolderJamaica YES N/A Holder or opponentJapan YES YES ApplicantKyrgyzstan NO NO Holder, second party, party that

files the oppositionLithuania NO YES HolderMadagascar NO Any authority or person with a

legitimate interestMalta N/A NO Holder, applicant or his/her

attorneyMauritiusMexico NO NO HolderMonaco N/A NO Any person with an interestMorocco N/A Any person with an interestNew Zealand YES YES A party to the original decisionNorwayOman YES NO The right holderPakistan NO NO Aggrieved party of the decision

SCT/14/5page 125


A. Within which period of time is appeal possible?3. Entitlement to file an appeal


A(vii) Other time limit A(viii) Can this period be extended?

3A Who is entitled to file an appeal?

Panama NO NO Holder, opponent and third party

Peru YES NOPhilippines YES YES Any partyPortugal NO HolderRep. of Korea YES NO Interested personRep. of Moldova NO YES Any personRomaniaRussian Federation NO NO Any personSaint Lucia N/A N/A Party to the opposition

proceedingsSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES (42 days) YES Applicant or opponent

SingaporeSlovakia YES (30 days after

delivery of the decision)YES Anyone showing a legitimate

interestSlovenia YES (30 days) NO Holder, applicant or opponentSpain YES (1 month) NO Holder, opponent and third

partySri Lanka Holder or opponentSudan NO YES Any interested partySwaziland YES Any interested partySwedenSwitzerland YES NO Holder, Intellectual Property

office, parties to the opposition procedure

Syrian Arab Rep. NO NO Any interested personThailand NO NO Applicant or opponentThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES NO Applicant or opponent

Trinidad & Tobago NO YES Applicant or opponentTunisia YES NO Any interested personTurkey NO NO Any party adversely affected by

a decisionUkraine YES NOUnited Kingdom N/A N/A Party to the original decisionUSA N/A NO Party who was refused

registration and third party who filed a motion

Uruguay NO Holder, opponent, a third party with a direct interest

Zambia NO YES Holder, opponent, third partyOAPIBBM NO NOEC YES NO

A(vii) Please explain:

SCT/14/5page 126

Of those who responded positively to this question, the majority indicated that an appeal should be filed within one month from the receipt of the notification of the decision. However, a few replies indicated that the time limit to file an appeal was five days following the notification of the decision.

A(viii) If YES, please explain:

The periods for extension of a time limit to file an appeal varied from 15 days to 18 months. However, most respondents indicated a period, which varied between 15 days and two months.

SCT/14/5page 127

VII. UNREGISTERED MARKS (COMMON LAW MARKS)1. Protection


A. Do unregistered marks give rise to any right under national law?

B. Are unregistered marks protected against infringement?

C. Are unregistered marks protected against dilution?

Algeria NO NO NOArmenia NO NO NOAustralia YES YES NOAustria YES YES NOBangladesh NO NO NOBelarus NOBrazil YES NO NOBulgaria NOCanada YES NO NOChile NOChina YES NO N/AColombia NOCosta Rica NOCroatia NOCzech Rep. YES NO NODenmark YES YES YESDominicaEcuador NOEl Salvador N/A N/A N/AEstonia NOFinland YES YES YESFrance YES YES YESGeorgia NOGermany YES YES YESHungary NO NO NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES NO NOIreland YES NO NOItaly YES YES NOJamaica YES NO YESJapan N/A N/A N/AKyrgyzstan NOLithuania NOMadagascar NOMalta YES YES N/AMauritius YES YES YESMexico YES NO NO Monaco YES YES NOMorocco NONew Zealand YES NO YESNorway YES YES YESOman YES YES YESPakistan YES NO N/APanama YES NO NOPeru NOPhilippines YES NO NOPortugal YES YES NORep. of Korea N/A N/A N/ARep. of Moldova N/A N/A N/ARomania NO NO YES

SCT/14/5page 128



A. Do unregistered marks give rise to any right under national law?

B. Are unregistered marks protected against infringement?

C. Are unregistered marks protected against dilution?

Russian Federation NOSaint Lucia NOSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

NO

Singapore YES NO NOSlovakia NOSlovenia N/A N/A N/ASpain YES YES NOSri Lanka YES NO N/ASudan YES YES N/ASwaziland YES NO N/ASweden YES YES YESSwitzerlandSyrian Arab Rep. YES YES NOThailand YES YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

NO

Trinidad & Tobago YES YES NOTunisia NOTurkey NOUkraine NOUnited Kingdom YES YES YESUSA YES YES YESUruguayZambia NOOAPI NOBBM NOEC N/A

SCT/14/5page 129



D. Does the owner of a prior unregistered mark have any recourse against a subsequent user?

E. Does the owner of a prior unregistered mark have any recourse against a subsequent applicant/registrant?

Algeria NOArmenia NO NOAustralia YES YESAustria YES YESBangladesh YES YESBelarusBrazil YES YESBulgariaCanada YES YESChileChina YES YESColombiaCosta RicaCroatiaCzech Rep. NO YESDenmark YES YESDominicaEcuadorEl Salvador N/A N/AEstoniaFinland YES YESFrance YES YESGeorgiaGermany YES YESHungary NO NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YESIreland YES YESItaly YES YESJamaica YES YESJapan N/A N/AKyrgyzstanLithuaniaMadagascarMalta YES YESMauritius YES YESMexico YES YESMonaco YES YESMoroccoNew Zealand YES YESNorway YES YESOman YES YESPakistan N/A YESPanama YES YESPeruPhilippines YES YESPortugal YES YESRep. of Korea N/A N/ARep. of Moldova N/A N/ARomania NO NO

SCT/14/5page 130



D. Does the owner of a prior unregistered mark have any recourse against a subsequent user?

E. Does the owner of a prior unregistered mark have any recourse against a subsequent applicant/registrant?

Russian FederationSaint LuciaSt. Vincent & the GrenadinesSingapore YES YESSlovakiaSlovenia N/A N/ASpain YES YESSri Lanka YES YESSudan N/A N/ASwaziland N/A N/ASweden YES YESSwitzerlandSyrian Arab Rep. YES YESThailand YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of MacedoniaTrinidad & Tobago YES YESTunisiaTurkeyUkraineUnited Kingdom YES YESUSA YES YESUruguayZambiaOAPIBBMEC

SCT/14/5page 131

VII. UNREGISTERED MARKS (COMMON LAW MARKS)2. Protected subject matter


A.Unregisteredword marks

B.Unregisteredlogo and other non-word marks

C.Packaging

D.Trade dress

E.Companynames

F.Other

Algeria NO NO NO NO NOArmenia NO NO NO NO NO N/AAustralia YES YES YES YES YES YESAustria YES YES YES YES YES NOBangladesh YES YES YES YES YESBelarusBrazil YES YES YES NO YES NOBulgariaCanada YES YES YES YES YES N/AChileChina YES YES YES YES YESColombiaCosta RicaCroatiaCzech Rep. YES YES YES YES YES YESDenmark YES YES YES YES YES YESDominicaEcuadorEl Salvador N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AEstoniaFinland YES YES YES YES YESFrance YES YES YES YES YES YESGeorgiaGermany YESHungary NO NO NO NO NO NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) NO NO NO NO NO YESIreland YES YES YES YES YESItaly YES YES YES YES YES NOJamaica YES YES YES YES YES YESJapan N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A YESKyrgyzstanLithuaniaMadagascarMalta YES YES YES YES YESMauritius YES YES YES YES YES YESMexico YES YES YES YES YESMonaco YES YES YES YES YES NOMoroccoNew Zealand YES YES YES YES YES YESNorway YES YES YES YES YES N/AOman YES YES YES YES YES N/APakistan YES YES YES YES YES N/APanama NO NO YES YESPeruPhilippines YES YES YES N/A NO N/APortugal YES YES YES YES YES YESRep. of Korea N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ARep. of Moldova N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

SCT/14/5page 132

VII. UNREGISTERED MARKS (COMMON LAW MARKS)2. Protected subject matter


A.Unregisteredword marks

B.Unregisteredlogo and other non-word marks

C.Packaging

D.Trade dress

E.Companynames

F.Other

Romania NO NO NO NO NO NORussian FederationSaint LuciaSt. Vincent & the GrenadinesSingapore YES YES YES YES YESSlovakiaSlovenia N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ASpain YES YES YES YES YESSri Lanka YES YES YES YES YESSudanSwaziland NO NO NO NO NO NOSweden YES YES YES YES YESSwitzerlandSyrian Arab Rep. N/A YES YES YES YES YESThailand YES YES YES YES NO NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of MacedoniaTrinidad & Tobago YES YES NO NO NO NOTunisiaTurkeyUkraineUnited Kingdom YES YES YES YES YES YESUSA YES YES YES YES YES YESUruguayZambiaOAPIBBMEC

F. If YES, please explain:

Almost all of the respondents indicated that their respective legislations granted the same rights to unregistered marks as they did to registered marks.

SCT/14/5page 133

VII. UNREGISTERED MARKS (COMMON LAW MARKS)3. Criteria for protection


A. Is a level of awareness/prior recognition required?

B. Is distinctiveness required? C. Other

Algeria NO NOArmenia NO YESAustria YES YESAustralia YES YESBangladesh N/A YESBelarusBrazil NO YESBulgariaCanada YES YESChileChina YES YES YESColombiaCosta RicaCroatiaCzech Rep. YES YESDenmark NO YESDominicaEcuadorEl Salvador N/A N/AEstoniaFinland YES YESFrance YES YESGeorgiaGermany YESHungary NO NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YESIrelandItaly YES YESJamaica YES YESJapan YES YES YESKyrgyzstanLithuaniaMadagascarMalta YESMauritius YES YESMexico YES YESMonaco YES YESMoroccoNew Zealand YES YES YESNorway YES YESOman N/A YESPakistan YES YESPanama NO YESPeruPhilippines YES YESPortugal NO YESRep. of Korea N/A N/ARep. of Moldova N/A N/ARomania

SCT/14/5page 134

VII. UNREGISTERED MARKS (COMMON LAW MARKS)3. Criteria for protection


A. Is a level of awareness/prior recognition required?

B. Is distinctiveness required? C. Other

Russian FederationSaint LuciaSt. Vincent & the GrenadinesSingapore YES YESSlovakiaSlovenia N/A N/ASpain YES YESSri Lanka YES YES YESSudan N/A N/A NOSwaziland N/A YESSweden YES YES YESSwitzerlandSyrian Arab Rep. NO YESThailand NO NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of MacedoniaTrinidad & Tobago N/ATunisiaTurkeyUkraineUnited Kingdom N/A N/A YESUSA NO YES YESUruguayZambiaOAPIBBMEC

C. If YES, please explain:

Almost all replies stated that the criteria for protection of unregistered marks were determined case by case, taking into account several factors, such as distinctiveness, goodwill, reputation, damage, misrepresentation, etc.

SCT/14/5page 135

VII. UNREGISTERED MARKS (COMMON LAW MARKS)4. Infringement standards

5. PenaltiesA. What are the penalties/damages provisions for infringement of unregistered marks?


4A Is actual confusion required?

4B Is likelihood of confusion required?

4C Other 5A(i) Same as registeredmarks

5A(ii) Other

Algeria NO NO NOArmenia YES YES N/AAustralia NO YES YES YES YESAustria NO YES YESBangladesh YES YES YES YES YESBelarusBrazil N/A N/A N/ABulgariaCanada N/A N/A N/AChileChina YES YESColombiaCosta RicaCroatiaCzech Rep. NO YES N/A YESDenmark NO YES YESDominicaEcuadorEl Salvador N/A N/A N/AEstoniaFinland NO YES YESFrance NO YES YESGeorgiaGermany NO YES YES YESHungary NO NO NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YES YESIreland N/A N/A YESItaly YES YES YESJamaica N/A N/A YESJapan NO YES NO YESKyrgyzstanLithuaniaMadagascarMalta YES YESMauritius NO YES YES YESMexico N/A N/A N/AMonaco YES YES YESMoroccoNew Zealand YES YES NO YESNorway NO YES YESOman YES YES N/APakistan NO YES NOPanama YES YES NOPeruPhilippines N/A N/A N/APortugal NO YES YES NO YESRep. of Korea N/A N/A N/A

SCT/14/5page 136

VII. UNREGISTERED MARKS (COMMON LAW MARKS)4. Infringement standards

5. PenaltiesA. What are the penalties/damages provisions for infringement of unregistered marks?


4A Is actual confusion required?

4B Is likelihood of confusion required?

4C Other 5A(i) Same as registeredmarks

5A(ii) Other

Rep. of Moldova N/A N/A N/ARomaniaRussian FederationSaint LuciaSt. Vincent & the GrenadinesSingapore YES YESSlovakiaSloveniaSpain YES N/A N/ASri Lanka YES YES YES NO YESSudan NO YESSwaziland YES YES YESSweden YES YESSwitzerlandSyrian Arab Rep. YES NO NOThailand YES YES NO YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of MacedoniaTrinidad & Tobago N/A N/ATunisiaTurkeyUkraineUnited Kingdom N/A N/A NO YESUSA NO N/A YES YES N/AUruguayZambiaOAPIBBMEC

4C. Other, please explain:

The replies indicated that the standard for determining whether an infringement of an unregistered mark had happened was the same as for registered marks, with the only exception that an unregistered mark was not entitled to the same legal presumptions as granted to registered marks, and that the nature and extent of rights of an unregistered mark had to be proven individually.

5A(ii) Other, please explain:

Some replies indicated that an infringement of unregistered marks would be considered under the law of “passing off”.

SCT/14/5page 137

VIII. USE OF A MARK1. General use requirement


A. Does the applicable legislation provide for a use requirement?

B. If use is required to maintain a registration what uninterrupted period of non-use is considered?

C. If after the period of non-use under question B, the holder starts using his/her mark, will the use reinstate his/her rights?

If “yes” to C, are the rights valid against third parties?

D. Must use be substantiated during the registration period?

Algeria YES 3 years N/A N/A N/AArmenia YES 5 years YES YES NOAustralia YES 3 years N/A NOAustria YES 5 years YES YES NOBangladesh YES 5 years 1

monthNO

Belarus YES 5 years NO NOBrazil YES 5 years NO N/A NOBulgaria YES 5 years YES YES NOCanada YES N/A N/A N/A NOChile NO NOChina YES 3 years YES YES NOColombia YES 3 years NO N/A NOCosta Rica NO NO NO NOCroatia YES 5 years YES YES NOCzech Rep. N/A 5 years YES YES NODenmark YES 5 years NODominicaEcuador YES 3 years NO NOEl Salvador NO N/A N/A NOEstonia YES 5 years YES YES NOFinland YES 5 years YES NOFrance YES 5 years YES YES NOGeorgia YES 5 years YES YES YESGermany YES 5 years N/A NOHungary YES 5 years YES YES NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES 3 years YES YESIreland YES 5 years YES YES NOItaly YES 5 years YES YES YESJamaica YES 3 years YES YES NOJapan YES 3 years N/A NOKyrgyzstan YES 3 years N/ALithuania YES 5 years YES YES NOMadagascar YES 3 years N/A N/AMalta YES 5 years YES YES N/AMauritius YES 3 years N/A NOMexico YES 3 years YES YES YESMonaco NO NOMorocco YES 5 years NO N/A N/ANew Zealand YES 3 years YES YES NONorway YES 5 years NOOman YES 5 years NO NOPakistan YES 5 years YES YES NO

SCT/14/5page 138

VIII. USE OF A MARK1. General use requirement


A. Does the applicable legislation provide for a use requirement?

B. If use is required to maintain a registration what uninterrupted period of non-use is considered?

C. If after the period of non-use under question B, the holder starts using his/her mark, will the use reinstate his/her rights?

If “yes” to C, are the rights valid against third parties?

D. Must use be substantiated during the registration period?

Panama YES 5 years YES NOPeru YES 3 years No NOPhilippines YES 3 years N/A YESPortugal YES 5 years YES NO YESRep. of Korea N/A N/A N/A N/ARep. of Moldova NO 5 years NO NORomania YES YESRussian Federation YES 3 years NO NOSaint Lucia YES 3 years NO N/A YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES 3 years YES YES NO

Singapore YES 5 years NOSlovakia YES NO NOSlovenia NO YES YES N/ASpain YES 3 years YES YES NOSri Lanka NO 5 years N/A NOSudan YES 5 years YES YES NOSwaziland YES 3 years YES YES YESSweden YES 5 years N/ASwitzerland YES 5 years YES YES NOSyrian Arab Rep. NO N/A N/A N/A N/AThailand NO YES YES NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES 5 years YES YES YES

Trinidad & Tobago YES 5 years NO NOTunisia YES 5 years YES YES NOTurkey YES 5 years N/A N/A NOUkraine YES N/A NOUnited Kingdom YES 5 years YES YES NOUSA YES YESUruguay N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AZambia NO 5 years NO N/A YESOAPI YES 5 years NOBBM YES 5 years YES YES NOEC YES 5 years YES YES NO

SCT/14/5page 139

D. If YES, explain how and when:

In most cases, if a registration was challenged on the basis of non-use of the mark, proof of its genuine use must be provided. Some replies specified that the proof of use could be in the form of a declaration to be presented at the time of renewal (or, in one reply specifically, one year from that). In another reply it was stated that for a registration to remain valid, an affidavit of use must be filed and use be substantiated by verifying in the affidavit that the mark was in use in commerce for the goods/services recited in the registration.

SCT/14/5page 140

VIII. USE OF A MARK2. What is considered as use


A. Does the legislation define what use is required?

B. According to your legislation or case law in your jurisdiction, do the following acts constitute use to maintain a registration:(i) Sole use in commercials or advertising

(ii) Use of a registered mark in a different form, the elements of which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark as registered

(iii) Affixation of a mark to goods or to the packaging thereof in your country solely for export purposes

(iv) Use of a mark by a person other than the holder, if such use is made with the holder'sconsent

Algeria NO N/A YES NO NOArmenia NO YES YES YES YESAustralia NO YES YES YES YESAustria NO NO YES NO YESBangladesh YES YES NO N/A YESBelarus YES NO YES NO YESBrazil NO NO NO NO YESBulgaria YES NO YES YES YESCanada YES YES YES YES YESChile NO NOChina NO N/A YES YES YESColombia YES NO YES YES YESCosta Rica NO N/A N/A N/A YESCroatia NO NO YES YES YESCzech Rep. NO N/A YES YES YESDenmark YES NO YES YES YESDominicaEcuador YES NO NO NO YESEl Salvador N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AEstonia YES NO YES YES YESFinland NO YESFrance NO YES YES YES YESGeorgia YES YES YES N/A YESGermany NO YES YES YESHungary YES YES YES YES YESIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YES NO YES YESIreland YES YES YES YES YESItaly NO NO YES YES YESJamaica YES YES YES YES YESJapan YES YES YES NO YESKyrgyzstan YES YES YES NO YESLithuania YES NO YES YES YESMadagascar NO N/A N/A N/A YESMalta NO N/A N/A N/A N/AMauritius NOMexico NO YES YES YES YESMonaco NO YES NO N/A YESMorocco YES N/A YES YES YES

SCT/14/5page 141

New Zealand NO YES YES YES YES



A. Does the legislation define what use is required?

B. According to your legislation or case law in your jurisdiction, do the following acts constitute use to maintain a registration:(i) Sole use in commercials or advertising

(ii) Use of a registered mark in a different form, the elements of which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark as registered

(iii) Affixation of a mark to goods or to the packaging thereof in your country solely for export purposes

(iv) Use of a mark by a person other than the holder, if such use is made with the holder'sconsent

Norway NO YES YES YES YESOman NO NO NO N/A YESPakistan YES YESPanama YES YES YES YESPeru YES NO YES YES YESPhilippines NO YES YES YES YESPortugal NO NO YES YES YESRep. of Korea N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ARep. of Moldova YES YES NO NO YESRomania NO YES NO YES YESRussian Federation YES YES YES YES YESSaint Lucia YES N/A N/A N/A YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES YES YES YES YES

Singapore NO YES YES YES YESSlovakia YES YES YES YESSlovenia YES N/A YES YES YESSpain YES NO YES YES YESSri Lanka NO YES NO YES YESSudan NO NO N/A N/A YESSwaziland YES NO N/A N/A YESSweden NO YES YES YES YESSwitzerland YES YES YES YES YESSyrian Arab Rep. NO N/A N/A N/A YESThailand NO YES YES YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES NO YES YES YES

Trinidad & Tobago NO NO NO NO YESTunisia NO YES N/A YESTurkey YES YES YES YES YESUkraine YES N/A YES N/A YESUnited Kingdom NO NO YES YES YESUSA YES YES YES YESUruguay N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AZambia YES YES NO YES YESOAPI N/A N/A YES YESBBM YES YESEC NO YES YES YES YES

SCT/14/5page 142

SCT/14/5page 143

A. If YES, please give definition:

More than half of the replies pointed out that a mark must be affixed on goods for which it had been registered (in some cases, even second hand goods), for instance, on the packaging thereof, exhibits, sales, signs, business documents, official forms, labels, price lists, advertisements, published works, importing/exporting purposes, etc. Others defined the expression “required use” as the use of a mark in a printed or other visible representation and/or evidences upon which the registrar could rely (i.e., tax payment documentation). A few others added that use must be genuine and serious.

B(i) If YES, please explain:

The majority of the replies stated that the act of displaying or distributing advertisements, publications, official forms (letterheads) and signboards displaying exhibits in exhibitions and fairs, were considered as use.

B(ii) If YES, please explain:

All replies indicated that use was valid as long as the registered mark was not substantively altered, meaning that its distinctive elements were not changed (in one reply, however, verbal marks were excluded). In one case specifically, the good faith of this type of use must be proved. In another, the distinctive elements of the mark (in the form in which it was registered) should be identified, likewise the variant.

B(iii) If YES, please explain:

The vast majority considered this as genuine use of the mark (same as use in national territory) and, in many cases, that this type of use could serve as evidence of use and, therefore, guarantee the validity of the registration. One reply, however, stated that this type of use was only valid on its territory if the products containing the mark were exported to specific countries.

SCT/14/5page 144



B. According to your legislation or case law in your jurisdiction, do thefollowing acts constitute use to maintain a registration:

(v) Use of a mark as a business name/symbol, and not in relation to the goods or services for which the mark is protected

(vi) Use for the purpose of a market test of goods or services

(vii) Must the mark be subject of serious use to maintain the rights?

Algeria N/A N/A YESArmenia NO NO NOAustralia NO NO YESAustria NO NO YESBangladesh YES YESBelarus NO YES YESBrazil NO NO YESBulgaria NO NO YESCanada NO YES NOChileChina NO NOColombia NO NO N/ACosta Rica YES NO NOCroatia NO NO YES Czech Rep. NO NO YESDenmark NO NODominicaEcuador NO NO NOEl Salvador N/A N/A N/AEstonia NO NO YESFinlandFrance NO YESGeorgia YES N/A N/AGermany NO YESHungary NO YES NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) NO YES YESIreland NO YES N/AItaly NO NO YESJamaica NO YES YESJapan NO NO YESKyrgyzstan YES YES N/ALithuania NO NOMadagascar YES YES NOMalta N/A N/A N/AMauritiusMexico YES YES NOMonaco YES N/A NOMorocco NO YES YESNew Zealand NO NO YESNorway NO YESOman NO YES YESPakistan N/A N/A NOPanama NO YES YES

SCT/14/5page 145



B. According to your legislation or case law in your jurisdiction, do thefollowing acts constitute use to maintain a registration:

(v) Use of a mark as a business name/symbol, and not in relation to the goods or services for which the mark is protected

(vi) Use for the purpose of a market test of goods or services

(vii) Must the mark be subject of serious use to maintain the rights?

Peru NO NO YESPhilippines NO YES YESPortugal NO NO YESRep. of Korea N/A N/A N/ARep. of Moldova YES N/A NORomania NO NO NORussian Federation NO N/A N/ASaint LuciaSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

NO YES YES

Singapore YES YESSlovakia YES YES YESSlovenia N/A N/A YESSpain NO NO YESSri Lanka NO YES NOSudan N/A N/A YESSwaziland NO N/A NOSweden NO NOSwitzerland NO NO YESSyrian Arab Rep. YES NO NOThailand NO YES NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

NO NO YES

Trinidad and Tobago NO NO NOTunisia NO YES YESTurkey NO NO YESUkraine N/A N/A YESUnited Kingdom NO YES YESUSA NO NO NOUruguay N/A N/A N/AZambia NO YES NOOAPI NO YESBBM NOEC NO NO YES

C. What other types of use fulfil the use requirement, please explain?

The majority of the replies pointed out two other types of use, namely the commercialization of the goods/services containing the mark, and the real and genuine use of the mark in relation to the goods/services (bona fide use). One reply specified that the use of a mark purely in a decorative manner was not considered as use in its territory. Other indications of use were: storage for sale purposes and use on the Internet.

SCT/14/5page 146

VIII. USE OF A MARK3. Periods of use/non use after registration


A. Is the uninterrupted period of non-use computed from the date of registration?

B. Is the uninterrupted period of non-use computed at any time during the registration?

C. Can the period of non-use be reset by subsequent use?

D. By other means?

E. What kind of valid reasons shown by the holder of themark will excuse non-use?

Algeria YES YES N/A N/A N/AArmenia YES YES YES NO YESAustralia NO NO NOAustria NO YES YES NO YESBangladesh NO YES YES YES YESBelarus YES YESBrazil YES YES NO NO YESBulgaria YES YES NO NOCanada N/A N/A N/A N/AChileChina YES YES YES YESColombia YES NO NO NO YESCosta Rica YES NO NO NO YESCroatia YES NO YES NOCzech Rep. NO YES YES YES YESDenmark NO YES YES NO YESDominicaEcuador NO YES NO NO YESEl Salvador N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AEstonia YES YES NOFinland YES YES YESFrance NO YES YES YESGeorgia NO YES YES NO N/AGermany YES YESHungary YES NO YES NO YESIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES NO YES NO YESIreland NO YES YES NO YESItaly YES YES YES NO YESJamaica YES NO YES N/A YESJapan NO YES YES NOKyrgyzstan YES YES YES N/A YESLithuania NO YES YES NO YESMadagascar YES NO NO NO YESMalta YES N/A N/A N/A N/AMauritius YES NO N/A N/AMexico NO NO YES NO YESMonaco NO NO NO NO N/AMorocco NO NO NO NONew Zealand YES YES YES NO YESNorway NO YES YES NO YESOman YES YES N/A NO YESPakistan YES NO YES NO YESPanama YES NO NO NO YESPeru YES NO NO NO YES

SCT/14/5page 147

VIII. USE OF A MARK3. Periods of use/non use after registration


A. Is the uninterrupted period of non-use computed from the date of registration?

B. Is the uninterrupted period of non-use computed at any time during the registration?

C. Can the period of non-use be reset by subsequent use?

D. By other means?

E. What kind of valid reasons shown by the holder of themark will excuse non-use?

Philippines YES NO NO NOPortugal YES NO YES YES YESRep. of Korea N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ARep. of Moldova NO YES YES NO YESRomania NO YESRussian Federation NO YES NO NO YESSaint Lucia NO NO NO YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

NO YES YES NO

Singapore YES NO NO N/ASlovakia YES NO YES NO NOSlovenia YES NO YES N/A N/ASpain YES YES YES YESSri Lanka NO YES YES N/A YESSudan YES NO N/A N/A N/ASwaziland YES N/A NO N/A N/ASweden N/A YES YES N/ASwitzerland NO YES YES YES YESSyrian Arab Rep. NO NO NO NO NOThailand YES YES YES N/AThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES NO YES YES

Trinidad and Tobago YES NO NO NOTunisia YES NO NO NO YESTurkey YES NO YES NO YESUkraine YES YES N/A YESUnited Kingdom YES YES YES NOUSA NO YES YES N/A YESUruguay N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AZambia YES NO NO YESOAPI NO YES YES N/ABBM YES YES YESEC YES N/A YES NO YES

D. If YES, please explain:

Most replies stated that the use/non-use period started either from the filing date of an application for registration or from the expiry date of an opposition procedure.

SCT/14/5page 148

E. If YES, please explain:

For most respondents, non-use might be excused in case of unforeseen circumstances, force majeure, which prevented the holder from using his mark, i.e., import/export restrictions, natural disasters, etc. In one reply, court must accept the excuses given by the party concerned in order to be considered as valid.

SCT/14/5page 149

VIII. USE OF A MARK3. Periods of use/non use after registration; 4. Miscellaneous


F. Does your legislation provide for a “grace” period between the end of the uninterrupted period of non-use and the introduction of an action for cancellation/revocation of a mark for non-use?

G. In such a case, does your legislation provide for a specific period during which commencement or resumption of use is not taken into account when the holder of the mark was aware, or could not have been unaware, that an action for cancellation/revocation may be introduced?

H. Are there sanctions for unjustified non-use of a registered mark?

4A Does your law provide for specific requirements regarding the use of trademarks in particular sectors such as the health and the environment?

Algeria NO NO NO NOArmenia NO NO NO YESAustria YES N/A YES NOAustralia YES YES YES NOBangladesh NO N/A YESBelarus YES NOBrazil NO NO YES NOBulgaria YES YES YES NOCanada N/A N/A YES YESChileChina YES YES YES NOColombia NO NO NO NOCosta Rica YES NO NO NOCroatia NO YES YES NOCzech Rep. NO YES YES NODenmark YES & NO YES YESDominicaEcuador NO NO NO NOEl Salvador N/A N/A N/A NOEstonia YES YES NO NOFinland YES YES YESFrance YES YES YES NOGeorgia YES YES NO NOGermany YES YES NOHungary YES YES YES NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) NO NO NOIreland NO YES NO NOItaly YES YES YES NOJamaica YES YES NO NOJapan YES YES YES NOKyrgyzstan N/A N/A YES NOLithuania YES YES YES NOMadagascar NO NO NOMalta NO YES N/A NOMauritius N/A N/A YES NOMexico YES NO NO NOMonaco NO NO NO

SCT/14/5page 150







Morocco NO YES YES N/ANew Zealand YES N/A YES NONorway N/A YES YESOman N/A N/A YES N/APakistan NO NO NO NOPanama NO NO YES NOPeru NO NO YES NOPhilippines NO NO YES NOPortugal YES YES YES YESRep. of Korea N/A N/A N/A N/ARep. of Moldova NO NO NO YESRomania NO YES NORussian Federation NO NO YES NOSaint. LuciaSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES NO NO NO

Singapore NO YESSlovakia YES YES NOSlovenia YES YES YES YESSpain NO YES YES NOSri Lanka NO N/A NO NOSudan N/A YES NOSwaziland NO NO YES N/ASweden YES YES NOSwitzerland NO NO YES NOSyrian Arab Rep. NO NO NO NOThailand NO NO NO NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

NO NO NO NO

Trinidad & Tobago NO NO NOTunisia YES YES YES NOTurkey N/A N/A N/A NOUkraine NO YES NOUnited Kingdom NO YES YES NOUSA NO N/A YES NOUruguay N/A N/A N/A N/AZambia NO NO YES NOOAPI NO NO

SCT/14/5page 151







BBM YES YES YES NOEC YES YES YES NO

H. If YES, please explain which are the sanctions:

In most cases, if the mark was not used within the time-limit set out in the domestic laws/practice, the registration was either removed from the register, cancelled, revoked or it simply lapsed. According to some replies, cancellation/invalidity might be requested by third parties.

4A. If YES, please explain:

In many replies, reference was made to pharmaceutical and pharmaceutical related products. In one reply it was indicated that the legislation on tobacco control provided special requirements regarding the use of marks on tobacco products.

SCT/14/5page 152

IX. USE OF TRADEMARK SYMBOLS


1. Is marking provided for in national legislation?

2. Are markings allowed to indicate registration?

3. Are markings allowed to indicate use (when the mark is unregistered)?

4. Are there optional marking provisions?

5. Does the law provide for benefits from using optional markings?

Algeria NO YES N/A N/A NOArmenia YES YES NO YES NOAustralia NO YES YES YES NOAustria NO YES NO NO NOBangladesh YES NO NO YESBelarus YES YES NO NO NOBrazil NO N/A N/A N/A N/ABulgaria NO YES N/A NO N/ACanada NO YES YES NO NOChile YES YES NO YES YESChina NO YES N/A NO N/AColombia NO YES N/A NO NOCosta Rica YES YES NO NO NOCroatia NO YES NO NO NOCzech Rep. YES YES NO NO NODenmark YES YES NO N/ADominicaEcuador NO YES N/A NO NOEl Salvador NO N/A N/A NO N/AEstonia NO YES N/A YES NOFinland NO YES NO NOFrance NO YES N/A NO NOGeorgia NO N/A N/A NO NOGermany NO YES NO NO N/AHungary NO YES YES NO NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) NO NO NO NO NOIreland NO N/A N/A N/A N/AItaly NO YES YES NO NOJamaica NO YES NOJapan YES YES NO NO YESKyrgyzstan YES YES NO NO NOLithuania YES YES N/A YES N/AMadagascar NO N/A N/A NO NOMalta NO YES N/A N/A N/AMauritius NO YES N/A N/A N/AMexico YES YES NO NO N/AMonaco NO NO NO NO NOMorocco NO NO NO NO NONew Zealand YES YES YES YES NONorway YES YES NO NOOman NO YES NO NO N/APakistan YES YES NO NO NOPanama YES YES NO NO NOPeru YES YES NO NO NOPhilippines NO YES NO NO NOPortugal YES YES NO YES NO

SCT/14/5page 153



1. Is marking provided for in national legislation?

2. Are markings allowed to indicate registration?

3. Are markings allowed to indicate use (when the mark is unregistered)?

4. Are there optional marking provisions?

5. Does the law provide for benefits from using optional markings?

Rep. of Korea YES YES NO YES NORep. of Moldova YES YES N/A N/A NORomania NO YES NORussian Federation YES YES NO N/A N/ASaint Lucia NO N/A NO NOSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

NO YES YES NO NO

Singapore YES YES NOSlovakia YES YES NO NO NOSlovenia NO YES NO NO NOSpain NO YES NO NOSri Lanka NO YES N/A NO NOSudan NO YES N/A N/A N/ASwaziland N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ASweden YES YES NO NOSwitzerland NO YES YES NO NOSyrian Arab Rep. NO YES NO YES NOThailand NO YES NO NO NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES YES NO NO NO

Trinidad & Tobago NO YES NO NO NOTunisia YES YES NO NO NOTurkey NO YES NO NO NOUkraine YES YES NO YES NOUnited Kingdom YES YES YES NO NOUSA YES YES YES YES YESUruguay N/A N/AZambia YES YES N/A N/A N/AOAPI NO NO NO NO N/ABBM NO YES N/A N/A N/AEC NO YES YES NO NO


The majority of replies indicated that a trademark owner had the option to place, next to the mark, a preventive sign, or warning, confirming the registration of the said mark (i.e., using ®, TM, or expressions such as “Registered Trademark”).


Some replies stated that an owner of a mark that carried a trademark symbol might have benefits in case of infringement proceedings.

SCT/14/5page 154



6. Which law applies for cases of false or deceptive use of marking symbols?

7. Are there penalties for non-use of markings symbols when required by law?

8. Who is responsible for control of marking requirements?

Algeria NOArmenia NOAustralia N/AAustria N/ABangladesh YESBelarus NOBrazil N/ABulgaria NOCanada N/A N/A N/AChile NOChina NOColombia NOCosta Rica NOCroatia N/ACzech Rep. NODenmark N/ADominicaEcuador N/AEl Salvador N/AEstonia NOFinland N/AFrance NOGeorgia N/AGermany N/AHungary NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) NOIreland YESItaly NOJamaicaJapan NOKyrgyzstan NOLithuania N/AMadagascar NOMalta N/AMauritius NOMexico N/AMonaco NOMorocco NONew Zealand NONorway N/AOman N/APakistan NOPanama NOPeru YES IP OfficePhilippines NO IP OfficePortugal NORep. of Korea NORep. of Moldova NORomania

SCT/14/5page 155



6. Which law applies for cases of false or deceptive use of marking symbols?

7. Are there penalties for non-use of markings symbols when required by law?

8. Who is responsible for control of marking requirements?

Russian Federation NOSaint Lucia NOSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

N/A

Singapore NOSlovakia NOSlovenia NOSpain N/ASri Lanka N/ASudan N/ASwaziland N/ASweden N/ASwitzerland NOSyrian Arab Rep. NOThailand NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

NO

Trinidad & Tobago NOTunisia NOTurkey N/AUkraine NOUnited Kingdom N/AUSA NOUruguay N/AZambia NOOAPIBBMEC N/A

6. Which law applies for cases of false or deceptive use of marking symbols? Please identify:

Most of the replies indicated their national Trade Mark Law/Act as the applied legislation. The second most indicated legislation was that on Unfair Competition, followed by Commercial, Civil, Penal and Criminal Laws. A small amount indicated that there was no such type of legislation in their territories (or at least not yet).


One reply explained that, in case of non-use of marking symbols when required by law, a fine would be charged. In case of continuing offence, an additional fine would be charged on a daily basis.

SCT/14/5page 156

8. Who is responsible for the control of marking requirements: the IP office, another government body or a private sector institution?

For the majority, governmental authorities such as the Ministry of Commerce were responsible for the control of marking requirements. Some others informed, however, that administrative authorities, such as national Industrial Property offices were the ones responsible for the said control.

SCT/14/5page 157

X. CANCELLATION OR/AND INVALIDATION PROCEEDINGS1. General


A. Please explain the nature of cancellation and/or invalidation procedures in your country

B. Does failure of required use lead to ex officio cancellation of the registered mark?

C. Are proceedings available to remove a mark from the register at an administrative level in the trademark office?

C(i) If “yes”, what are the standing requirements?

C(ii) If “yes”, by any interested person?

Algeria NO NO N/A N/AArmenia NO YES YESAustralia NO YES NOAustria NO YES N/ABangladesh YES YES YESBelarus NO YES YESBrazil NO YES YESBulgaria NO YESCanada NO YES NOChile NO NOChina NO YES YESColombia NO YES YESCosta Rica YES NOCroatia NO YES YESCzech Rep. NO YES YESDenmark NO YES YESDominicaEcuador NO YES YESEl Salvador N/A NO N/AEstonia NO YES YESFinland NO NOFrance NO NOGeorgia NO YES NOGermany NO YES YESHungary NO YES NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) NO YES YESIreland YES YES YESItaly NO NOJamaica YES YESJapan NO YES YESKyrgyzstan YES YES YESLithuania NO YES YESMadagascar NO NOMalta NO NOMauritius YES YESMexico NO YES YESMonaco NO YES NOMorocco NO YES NONew Zealand NO YES N/ANorway NO YES YESOman NO YES N/APakistan NO NO

SCT/14/5page 158



A. Please explain the nature of cancellation and/or invalidation procedures in your country

B. Does failure of required use lead to ex officio cancellation of the registered mark?

C. Are proceedings available to remove a mark from the register at an administrative level in the trademark office?

C(i) If “yes”, what are the standing requirements?

C(ii) If “yes”, by any interested person?

Panama YES YES YESPeru NO YES YESPhilippines NO YES YESPortugal YES YES YESRep. of Korea NO NORep. of Moldova NO YES YESRomania NO NORussian Federation NO YESSaint Lucia NO YES YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

NO NO

Singapore NO NO YESSlovakia YES YES YESSlovenia NO NOSpain YES YES YESSri Lanka NO NOSudan YES YES YES YESSwaziland NO YES YESSweden NO NO N/ASwitzerland NO NOSyrian Arab Rep. NO YES YESThailand YES YES NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

NO YES YES

Trinidad & Tobago NO YES YESTunisia YES NOTurkey NO YES YESUkraine NO YES NOUnited Kingdom NO YES NOUSA YES YES YESUruguay N/A YES NOZambia YES YES YESOAPI NO YES YESBBM NO NOEC NO YES YES

A. Please explain the nature of cancellation and/or invalidation procedures in your country:

About half of the responses indicated cancellation and invalidation as proceedings to be carried out at judicial level, although in some cases the initial procedures must happen before the offices. According to some legislations, cancellation/removal might be based, for example, on lack of use or failure to renew the registration.

SCT/14/5page 159

SCT/14/5page 160

C(i) If YES, what are the standing requirements?

The vast majority listed the following: non-renewal, non-use (no fulfillment of use requirements), non-compliance with local provisions, invalidation, the mark had become an unregistrable mark, cancellation following an opposition. Also any person with legal and legitimate interest might file a revocation (cancellation) action with a statement of the grounds upon which the said action was based, and proceed with the payment of the prescribed fees.

SCT/14/5page 161



D. Are appeal procedures available?

E. Cancellation/invalidation proceedings can start when within the period prescribed by law, the mark has not been put to genuine use in connection with the goods or services in respect of which it is registered

F. Are proceedings available to remove a mark from the register by a court?

Algeria N/A YES NOArmenia YES YES YESAustralia YES YES YESAustria YES YES N/ABangladesh YES YESBelarus YESBrazil YES YES YESBulgaria YES NO NOCanada YES YES YESChile YES YES YESChina YES YESColombia YES YES NOCosta Rica YES YES YESCroatia YES YES YESCzech Rep. YES YES N/ADenmark YES YES YESDominicaEcuador YES YES YESEl Salvador N/A N/A YESEstonia YES YES YESFinland YES YESFrance YES YESGeorgia YES YES YESGermany NO YES YESHungary YES NO NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES NO YESIreland YES YES YESItaly NO YES YESJamaica YES YES YESJapan YES YES NOKyrgyzstan YES YES YESLithuania YES YES YESMadagascar YES NO YESMauritius YES YES YESMexico YES N/A NOMonaco NO NO YESMorocco YES YES YESNew Zealand YES YES YESNorway YES YES YESOman NO YESPakistan YES YES YESPanama YES YES YES

SCT/14/5page 162



D. Are appeal procedures available?

E. Cancellation/invalidation proceedings can start when within the period prescribed by law, the mark has not been put to genuine use in connection with the goods or services in respect of which it is registered

F. Are proceedings available to remove a mark from the register by a court?

Peru YES YES NOPhilippines YES YES YESPortugal YES YES YESRep. of Korea YES YES N/ARep. of Moldova YES NO YESRomania YESRussian Federation NO YES NOSaint Lucia YES NO YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES YES YES

Singapore YES YES YESSlovakia YES YES NOSlovenia NO YES YESSpain YES YES YESSri Lanka YES N/A YESSudan YES YES YESSwaziland YES N/A YESSweden YES YES YESSwitzerland YES YES YESSyrian Arab Rep. YES YES YESThailand YES YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES YES YES

Trinidad & Tobago YES YES YESTunisia NO YES YESTurkey YES N/A YESUkraine NO YES YESUnited Kingdom YES N/A YESUSA YES YES YESUruguay NO N/A N/AZambia YES YES YESOAPI YES YES YESBBM YES YES YESEC YES YES YES

E. If YES, when does the period start and what is the duration of the period?

The majority indicated that if a mark was not genuinely used within a period of five years from registration date (or from the date of issue of the certificate), it could be cancelled/invalidated. A smaller group also indicated the five-year period, but from the date of publication of the registration. The third most indicated period was that of three years from registration date. A few others went on to explain that, if no oppositions were filed,

SCT/14/5page 163

the period would be of five years from the date where the opposition period expired, or, in case an opposition was filed, five years from the date of the final decision.

F. If YES, what are the standing requirements?

Some replies indicated as grounds for these actions relative and/or absolute grounds for refusal. Some indicated that the requirements should be the same as those before the national office.

SCT/14/5page 164



G. Are appeal procedures on court decisions available?

H. Are there restrictions in respect of time period during which such proceedings may be brought?

I. Can some registrations become incontestable?

Algeria YES NO NOArmenia YES YES NOAustralia YES YES NOAustria YES NO NOBangladesh YES YES NOBelarus NO NO NOBrazil YES YES YESBulgaria NO NOCanada YES YES YESChile YES YES NOChina YES NO NOColombia N/A YES NOCosta Rica YES YES N/ACroatia YES YES NOCzech Rep. YES YES NODenmark YES YES NODominicaEcuador YES YES NOEl Salvador YES YES N/AEstonia YES YES NOFinland YES NO YESFrance YES YES NOGeorgia YES N/A NOGermany YES YES YESHungary YES NO NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES NOIreland NOItaly YES NO YESJamaica YES YESJapan YES YES YESKyrgyzstan YES YES YESLithuania NOMadagascar YES NO YESMauritius YES NOMexico YES YES NOMonaco YES YES YESMorocco YES YES YESNew Zealand YES YES NONorway YES NO YESOman YES NO YESPakistan YES NOPanama YES YES N/APeru YES YES NOPhilippines YES YES NOPortugal YES YES NORep. of Korea N/A N/A YESRep. of Moldova YES YES NO

SCT/14/5page 165



G. Are appeal procedures on court decisions available?

H. Are there restrictions in respect of time period during which such proceedings may be brought?

I. Can some registrations become incontestable?

Romania YES YES NORussian Federation YES YES YESSaint Lucia YES NO NOSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES YES NO

Singapore YES NO NOSlovakia YES YES NOSlovenia YES YES YESSpain YES YES YESSri Lanka YES NO NOSudan YES YES NOSwaziland NO NO NOSweden YES NOSwitzerland YES NO NOSyrian Arab Rep. YES NO YESThailand YES YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES YES YES

Trinidad & Tobago YES YES YESTunisia YES YES YESTurkey YES N/A YESUkraine YES YES N/AUnited Kingdom YES YES NOUSA YES YES YESUruguay N/A N/A N/AZambia YES YES NOOAPI YES NO NOBBM YES YES NOEC YES YES NO

G. Please explain:

Most replies indicated that the dissatisfied party might appeal against a court decision, or a decision from the trademark office, before the court of the next instance - second or third. In this case, most replies cited the Supreme Court and the Court (or Board) of Appeal as a higher instance, but other types of courts were also mentioned, i.e. the High Court and the Federal Tribunal. One reply in particular said that an appeal must be presented before the instance that issued the final decision.

H. If YES, give time period restriction:

Many of the replies indicated a period of 15 days during which appeal procedures might be brought. Other replies mentioned the period of five to 90 days from the notification of the decision or two months from the publication of the decision. Some replies stated that in case that an interested party had acquiesced for five years with the use of the mark by a third

SCT/14/5page 166

party, he/she could no longer object to the use or invoke the nullity of the later application of that mark (unless in case of bad faith).

I. If YES, please explain how:

The majority of the replies answering “yes” indicated that, in case a mark was registered and effectively used for a period of at least five years (in one case, three years), counted from the date of its publication or registration, and provided that the application was made in good faith and in accordance with all national requirements, its use should not be contested (i.e., in a claim of priority use). In one reply specifically, an affidavit stating that the mark had been in continuous use in commerce for the period of five years, must be presented within one year after this period.

SCT/14/5page 167

X. CANCELLATION OR/AND INVALIDATION PROCEEDINGS2. Possible grounds for removal


A. Identity with prior mark, registered for identical goods or services

B. Likelihood of confusion with prior registered mark

C. Likelihood of confusion with prior unregistered mark

Algeria YES YES NOArmenia YES YES NOAustralia YES YES NOAustria YES YES YESBangladesh YES NO NOBelarus YES YES NOBrazil YES YES YESBulgaria YES YES YESCanada YES YES YESChile YES YES YESChina YES YES YESColombia YES YES N/ACosta Rica N/A N/A N/ACroatia YES YES NOCzech Rep. YES YES NODenmark YES YES YESDominicaEcuador YES YES NOEl Salvador YES YES YESEstonia YES YES YESFinland YES YES YESFrance YES YES YESGeorgia YES YES NOGermany YES YES YESHungary YES YES YESIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YES YESIreland YES YESItaly YES YES YESJamaica YES YES YESJapan YES YES YESKyrgyzstan YES YES NOLithuania YES YES YESMadagascar YES YES NOMalta YES YES YESMauritius YES YES YESMexico YES YES YESMonaco YES YES YESMorocco YES YES NONew Zealand YES YES YESNorway YES YES YESOman YES YES YESPakistan YES YES YESPanama YES YES N/APeru YES YES YESPhilippines YES YES YESPortugal YES YES YESRep. of Korea YES YES NORep. of Moldova YES YES NO

SCT/14/5page 168



A. Identity with prior mark, registered for identical goods or services

B. Likelihood of confusion with prior registered mark

C. Likelihood of confusion with prior unregistered mark

Romania YES YES NORussian Federation YES YES YESSaint Lucia NO NO NORussian Federation YES YES YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES YES NO

Singapore YES YES YESSlovakia YES YES YESSlovenia YES YES YESSpain YES YES YESSri Lanka NO NO NOSudan YES YES N/ASwaziland YES YES N/ASweden YES YES YESSwitzerland YES YES YESSyrian Arab Rep. YES YES YESThailand YES YES YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES YES YES

Trinidad & Tobago YES YES NOTunisia YES YES NOTurkey YES YES YESUkraine YES YES YESUnited Kingdom YES YES YESUSA YES YES YESUruguay N/A N/A N/AZambia YES YES NOOAPI YES YESBBM YES YES YESEC YES YES YES

SCT/14/5page 169



D. Likelihood ofconfusion withpending application

E. Appellations of origin/protected geographical indications

F. Surname

Algeria YES YES YESArmenia YES YES NOAustralia YES YES NOAustria NO YES NOBangladesh NO NO NOBelarus YES YES YESBrazil YES YES YESBulgaria NO YES YESCanada NO YES YESChile NO YES YESChina NO YES YESColombia YES YES YESCosta Rica N/A N/A N/ACroatia YES YES NOCzech Rep. N/A NO NODenmark YES YES YESDominicaEcuador YES YES YESEl Salvador YES YES YESEstonia YES YES NOFinland YES YES YESFrance YES YES YESGeorgia NO YES YESGermany NO YES YESHungary YES YES YESIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YES YESIreland YES YES NOItaly YES YES YESJamaica YES YES YESJapan YES YES N/AKyrgyzstan N/A YES NOLithuania YES YES YESMadagascar YES YES NOMalta YES YES YESMauritius N/A YES YESMexico YES YES NOMonaco NO YES NOMorocco YES YES YESNew Zealand YES YES YESNorway YES YES YESOman N/A YES YESPakistan YES YES YESPanama YES YES NOPeru YES YES YESPhilippines YES YES YESPortugal YES YES YESRep. of Korea YES YES NO

SCT/14/5page 170



D. Likelihood ofconfusion withpending application

E. Appellations of origin/protected geographical indications

F. Surname

Rep. of Moldova YES YES YESRomania NO YES YESRussian Federation YES YES YESSaint Lucia NO NO NOSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES NO N/A

Singapore YES YES YESSlovakia YES YES YESSlovenia YES YES YESSpain NO YES YESSri Lanka NO NO NOSudan N/A N/A N/ASwaziland YES N/A N/ASweden YES YES YESSwitzerland YES YES YESSyrian Arab Rep. YES NO YESThailand YES YES NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES YES YES

Trinidad & Tobago YES YES YESTunisia NO YES NOTurkey YES YES YESUkraine YES YES YESUnited Kingdom YES YES YESUSA YES YES YESUruguay N/A N/A N/AZambia YES N/A YESOAPI NO YES NOBBM YES YES NOEC YES YES NO

SCT/14/5page 171

X. CANCELLATION OR/AND INVALIDATION PROCEEDINGS2. Possible grounds for removal; 3. Miscellaneous


G. Descriptiveness H. Genericness I. Other 3A Is there a period of time during which a third party or the owner of the removed mark may not apply to register the mark again?

Algeria YES YES YESArmenia YES YES NOAustralia YES YES NOAustria YES YES NOBangladesh NO NO NOBelarus YES YES NOBrazil YES YES YESBulgaria YES YES NOCanada YES YES NOChile YES YES NOChina YES YES NOColombia YES YES NOCosta Rica N/A N/A N/ACroatia YES YES NOCzech Rep. YES YES NODenmark YES YES NODominicaEcuador YES YES NOEl Salvador YES YES NOEstonia YES YES NOFinland YES YES NOFrance YES YES YESGeorgia YES YES YESGermany YES YES NOHungary YES YES NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES YES NOIreland YES YES NOItaly YES YES NOJamaica YES NOJapan YES YES YESKyrgyzstan YES YES NOLithuania YES YES NOMadagascar YES YES NOMalta YES YES NOMauritius YES YES YESMexico YES YES NOMonaco YES YES NOMorocco YES YES NONew Zealand YES YES NONorway YES YES NOOman YES YES YESPakistan YES YES NOPanama YES YES NO

SCT/14/5page 172

X. CANCELLATION OR/AND INVALIDATION PROCEEDINGS2. Possible grounds for removal; 3. Miscellaneous


G. Descriptiveness H. Genericness I. Other 3A Is there a period of time during which a third party or the owner of the removed mark may not apply to register the mark again?

Peru YES YES NOPhilippines YES YES NOPortugal YES YES NORep. of Korea YES YES YESRep. of Moldova YES YES NORomania YES YES NORussian Federation NOSaint Lucia NO NO NOSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

N/A N/A NO

Singapore YES YES NOSlovakia YES YES YESSlovenia NO NO NOSpain YES YES NOSri Lanka NO YES YESSudan N/A N/A N/ASwaziland N/A N/A N/ASweden YES YES NOSwitzerland YES YES NOSyrian Arab Rep. YES YES NOThailand YES YES NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES YES YES

Trinidad & Tobago YES YES NOTunisia YES YES NOTurkey YES YES NOUkraine YES YES YESUnited Kingdom YES YES NOUSA YES YES NOUruguay N/A N/A N/AZambia YES YES YESOAPI YES YES YESBBM YES YES NOEC YES YES NO

I. Other:

The following grounds for removal, among others, were given: all relative and/or absolute grounds, conflict with official signs, non-distinctiveness of the mark, conflict with the denomination of a plant variety or notorious mark, a mark created in bad faith or a mark that had become the common name in trade for the product for which it was registered, copyright violation, conflict with an earlier right to a name and registration obtained by fraud or other unlawful means.

SCT/14/5page 173


One reply indicated that, once a final and conclusive decision was rendered, the owner (or, in some cases, a third party as well) was prohibited to present a new trademark application. Once a mark ceased to have effect, the period of prohibition to use or to apply the same mark again varied between one to 10 years.

SCT/14/5page 174

XI. RENEWAL OF REGISRATION


1. Duration of registration

2. Period for filing renewal applications

3. Payment of renewal fee only required?

4. Are there other requirements for renewal?

6. Does the IP office contact the holder of the mark to inform him/her when his/her registration is due for renewal?

Algeria 10 years 10 years NO NO YESArmenia 10 years 10 years YES NO NOAustralia 10 years 12 months

before & afterNO YES

Austria 10 years YES NO YESBangladesh Perpetual 6 months after NO YESBelarus 10 years 6 months

beforeYES NO NO

Brazil 10 years 1 year before & 6 months

after

YES YES NO

Bulgaria 10 years Last year YES NO NOCanada 15 years 6 months after YES NO YESChile 10 years 30 days after YES NO NOChina 10 years 6 months

before & afterYES NO YES

Colombia 10 years 6 months before & after

YES NO NO

Costa Rica 10 years 1 year before YES NO NOCroatia 10 years Last year & 6

months afterNO YES NO

Czech Rep. 10 years Last year YES NO NODenmark 10 years 6 months

before & afterYES YES

DominicaEcuador 10 years 6 months

before & afterYES NO NO

El Salvador 10 years 1 year before & six months

after

YES NO NO

Estonia 10 years 1 year before & six months

after

YES NO NO

Finland 10 years 1 year before & 6 months

after

YES NO YES

France 10 years 6 months before

YES NO NO

Georgia 10 years Last six months

YES NO N/A

Germany 10 years 1 year before YES NO YESHungary 10 years 12 months

before & 6 months after

YES YES YES

Iran (Islamic Rep. of)

10 years Up to 6 months after

YES NO

SCT/14/5page 175








Ireland 10 years Up to 6 months after

NO YES YES

Italy 10 years 1 year before & 6 months

after

YES NO NO

Jamaica 10 years 6 months before

YES NO YES

Japan 10 years 6 months before & after

YES NO NO

Kyrgyzstan 10 years Last year YES YES NOLithuania 10 years 1 year before

& 6 months after

YES NO NO

Madagascar 10 years 1 year before YES NO NOMauritius 10 years 6 months

before & 3 months after

NO YES NO

Malta 10 years 6 months before

YES NO YES

Mexico 10 years 6 months before & after

NO YES NO

Monaco 10 years Up to 6 months after

YES YES & NO NO

Morocco 10 years 6 months before

NO YES

New Zealand 10 years 1 year before and 1 year

after

YES NO YES

Norway 10 years 1 year before YES YESOman 10 years 6 months after YES NO YESPakistan 10 years 6 months after YES NOPanama 10 years 1 year before

& 6 months after

NO NO NO

Peru 10 years 6 months after YES NO NOPhilippines 10 years Within 6

months beforeNO YES NO

Portugal 10 years 6 months before & after

YES NO YES

Rep. of Korea 10 years 1 year before YES NO YESRep. of Moldova

10 years Last year YES NO YES

Romania 10 years YES NO NORussian Federation

10 years Last year YES NO NO

Saint Lucia 10 years 6 months before & 12

after

YES NO YES

SCT/14/5page 176








St. Vincent & the Grenadines

10 years 6 months before

YES NO YES

Singapore 10 years Up to 1 year after

YES YES

Slovakia 10 years Last year & 6 months after

YES NO NO

Slovenia 10 years 12 months before

YES NO YES

Spain 10 years 6 months before & after

YES NO YES

Sri Lanka 10 years 1 year before & 6 months

after

YES NO NO

Sudan 10 years 3 months before

YES N/A YES

Swaziland 10 years 10 years YES NO YESSweden 10 years 1 year before

& 6 months after

YES YES

Switzerland 10 years 1 year before & 6 months

after

NO YES YES

Syrian Arab Rep.

10 years YES NO NO

Thailand 10 years 90 days before YES NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

10 years 1 year before & 9 months

after

YES NO YES

Trinidad & Tobago

10 years 6 months before

YES NO YES

Tunisia 10 years 6 months before

NO NO

Turkey 10 years 1 year YES NO NOUkraine YES NO N/AUnited Kingdom

10 years 6 months after YES NO YES

USA 10 years 6 months after NO NO NOUruguay 10 years 6 months

beforeYES NO NO

Zambia 7 years 6 months before

YES NO YES

OAPI 10 years 6 months before

YES NO

BBM 10 years 6 months before & after

YES NO YES

EC 10 years 6 months before

NO NO YES

SCT/14/5page 177


Almost all of the respondents indicated the need for the filing of a formal request for renewal and, among the responses obtained, only in one reply it was indicated that the renewal request would be examined as if it were a new application.

5. How long is the period after expiration of registration during which renewal can still be made?

Almost universally the period after expiration during which renewal can still be made was indicated as six months.

6. If YES, what are the consequences if the IP office has failed to inform the holder?

Where replies were given to this question, virtually all indicated that there would not be any consequences arising from a failure on the part of the office to contact the holder when the registration was due for renewal.

SCT/14/5page 178

XI. RENEWAL OF REGISRATION7. Restoration; 8; 9


7A Are there provisions to restore a lapsed registration?

7B Can restoration affect the rights of intervening users?

7C Can restoration affect the rights of intervening registrants of identical/similar marks?

8. Is there a period of time after non-renewal during which third parties are prevented from applying to register the same mark?

9. Are unlimited renewals available?

Algeria NO NO NO YES YESArmenia NO NO NO YES YESAustralia N/A N/A N/A NO YESAustria YES YES YES NO YESBangladesh YES YES YES NO NOBelarus NO NO NO NO YESBrazil NO N/A N/A YES YESBulgaria NO NO YESCanada NO N/A N/A NO YESChile NO NO YESChina YES N/A N/A YES YESColombia NO N/A N/A NO YESCosta Rica NO N/A N/A YES NOCroatia YES N/A YES YES YESCzech Rep. NO NO NO YES YESDenmark NO N/A N/A NO YESDominicaEcuador NO N/A N/A NO YESEl Salvador NO N/A N/A NO YESEstonia NO NO NO NO YESFinland NO N/A N/A NO YESFrance NO N/A N/A YES YESGeorgia YES NO N/A YES YESGermany YES NO YES NO YESHungary NO NO NO YES YESIran (Islamic Rep. of) NO NO NO NO NOIreland YES NO NOItaly NO NO YESJamaica YES YES YES YES YESJapan YES NO YES YES YESKyrgyzstan NO NO NO YES YESLithuania NO N/A N/A NO NOMadagascar YES N/A NO YES YESMalta YES N/A N/A NO YESMauritius NO N/A N/A YES YESMexico NO N/A N/A YES YESMonaco NO NO NO NO YESMorocco NO NO NO NO YESNew Zealand YES NO NONorway NO N/A N/A NO YESOman N/A N/A N/A YES YESPakistan YES YES YES NO YES

SCT/14/5page 179

XI. RENEWAL OF REGISRATION7. Restoration; 8; 9


7A Are there provisions to restore a lapsed registration?

7B Can restoration affect the rights of intervening users?

7C Can restoration affect the rights of intervening registrants of identical/similar marks?

8. Is there a period of time after non-renewal during which third parties are prevented from applying to register the same mark?

9. Are unlimited renewals available?

Panama N/A N/A N/A NO NOPeru NO NO NO NO YESPhilippines YES YES YES NO YESPortugal YES YES YES NO YESRep. of Korea NO NO NO YES YESRep. of Moldova YES YES YES NO YESRomania NO NO YESRussian Federation NO N/A N/A N/A YESSaint Lucia NO N/A N/A YES YESSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

NO N/A N/A YES YES

Singapore YES NO NO YES YESSlovakia NO NO YES YES YESSlovenia YES NO NO NO NOSpain YES NO NO NO YESSri Lanka NO N/A N/A YES YESSudan YES NO N/A NO YESSwaziland NO YES YES NO YESSweden YES YES YES NO YESSwitzerland NO NO NO NO YESSyrian Arab Rep. NO NO NO NO YESThailand NO N/A N/A NO YESThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES NO NO NO YES

Trinidad & Tobago YES NO NO YES YESTunisia NO NO NO NO YESTurkey NO N/A N/A YES YESUkraine NO N/A N/AUnited Kingdom YES N/A N/A YES YESUSA YES YES YES NO YESUruguay N/A N/A N/A NO YESZambia YES YES YES YES NOOAPI YES YES YES YES YESBBM YES YES YES NO YESEC YES YES NO NO YES


Approximately one third of the responses confirmed that there existed limited provisions for restitutio in integrum.

SCT/14/5page 180

7B. If YES, please explain:

A small number of responses indicated that no intervening rights through registration might be obtained.

7C. If YES, please explain:

Of those who responded positively to question 7A, about half indicated that good faith use of the mark in the interim period was protected.


There was quite a wide divergence in the periods of time indicated during which third parties might be prevented from applying to register the same mark. The periods varied from the six-month grace period (in many cases) to 8 years (in a single case). However, the most common period indicated was one year from non-renewal.

SCT/14/5page 181



10. Must marks be used before they can be renewed?

11. Is evidence of use required upon renewal?

12. Duration of renewal.

13. Is a new number assigned each time a registration is renewed?

Algeria NO NO 10 years YESArmenia NO NO 10 years NOAustralia NO NO 10 years NOAustria NO NO 10 years NOBangladesh YES NO 7 years YESBelarus NO 10 years NOBrazil N/A NO 10 years NOBulgaria NO NO 10 years NOCanada NO NO 15 years NOChile NO NO 10 years YESChina NO NO 10 years NOColombia NO NO 10 years NOCosta Rica NO NO 10 years NOCroatia NO NO 10 years NOCzech Rep. NO NO 10 years NODenmark NO NO 10 years NODominicaEcuador NO NO 10 years NOEl Salvador NO NO 10 years NOEstonia YES NO 10 years NOFinland NO NO 10 years NOFrance NO NO 10 years NOGeorgia NO NO 10 years N/AGermany NO NO 10 years NOHungary NO NO 10 years NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) YES NO 10 years NOIreland NO NO 10 years NOItaly YES NO 10 years YESJamaica NO NO 10 years NOJapan NO NO 10 years NOKyrgyzstan NO NO 10 years NOLithuania NO NO 10 years NOMadagascar NO NO 10 years YESMalta NO NO 10 years NOMauritius NO NO 10 years NOMexico YES NO 10 years NOMonaco NO NO 10 years NOMorocco NO NO 10 years YESNew Zealand NO NO 10 years NONorway NO NO 10 years NOOman YES NO 10 years NOPakistan NO YES 10 years NOPanama YES YES 10 years NOPeru NO NO 10 years NOPhilippines YES NO 10 years NOPortugal NO NO 10 years NORep. of Korea NO NO 10 yearsRep. of Moldova NO NO 10 years NO

SCT/14/5page 182



10. Must marks be used before they can be renewed?

11. Is evidence of use required upon renewal?

12. Duration of renewal.

13. Is a new number assigned each time a registration is renewed?

Romania NO NO 10 years NORussian Federation YES NO 10 years NOSaint Lucia NO NO 10 years NOSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

NO NO 10 years NO

Singapore NO NO 10 years NOSlovakia YES NO 10 years NOSlovenia NO NO 10 years NOSpain NO NO 10 years NOSri Lanka NO NO 10 years NOSudan N/A NO 10 years NOSwaziland YES YES 10 years NOSweden NO NO 10 years NOSwitzerland NO NO 10 years NOSyrian Arab Rep. NO NO 10 years YESThailand NO NO 10 years NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

NO NO 10 years NO

Trinidad & Tobago NO NO 10 years NOTunisia YES NO 10 years YESTurkey NO NO 10 years NOUkraine N/A N/A N/AUnited Kingdom NO NO 10 years NOUSA NO NO 10 years NOUruguay NO NO 10 years YESZambia YES YES 10 years NOOAPI NO NO 10 years NOBBM NO NO 10 years NOEC NO NO 10 years NO


Four respondents replied in the affirmative to this question, referring to the provisions of their respective laws.

14. What other formalities must be observed upon renewal?

The respondent who replied to this question indicated invariably that, apart from the filing of the request and payment of the renewal fees, no other formalities were required on renewal.

SCT/14/5page 183

XII. MAINTAINING THE REGISTER


1. Can changes be made to the registrations?

2. Are there any time limits for filing a request of a change?

3. What are the effects of a change in the register?

Algeria NO NOArmenia YES NOAustralia YES NOAustria YES NOBangladeshBelarus YES NOBrazil NO N/ABulgaria NO NOCanada YES NOChile NO NOChina YES NOColombia YES NOCosta Rica YES NOCroatia YES NOCzech Rep. YES NODenmarkDominicaEcuador YES NOEl Salvador YES NOEstonia YES NOFinland YES NOFrance YES NOGeorgia YES NOGermany YES NOHungary YES NOIran (Islamic Rep. of) NOIreland YES NOItaly NOJamaicaJapan YES YESKyrgyzstan YES NOLithuania YES NOMadagascar YES NOMalta YES NOMauritius YES NOMexico YES NOMonaco YES NOMorocco NO NONew Zealand YES NONorwayOman YES NOPakistan YES NOPanama YES NOPeru YES NOPhilippines YES NOPortugal YES NORep. of Korea N/A N/ARep. of Moldova YES NORomania NO

SCT/14/5page 184

XII. MAINTAINING THE REGISTER


1. Can changes be made to the registrations?

2. Are there any time limits for filing a request of a change?


Russian Federation YES NOSaint Lucia YES NOSt. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES NO

SingaporeSlovakia YES NOSlovenia YES NOSpain YES NOSri Lanka YES NOSudan YES NOSwaziland YES NOSwedenSwitzerland YES NOSyrian Arab Rep. NO NOThailand YES NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia

YES NO

Trinidad & Tobago YES NOTunisia YES NOTurkey YES NOUkraine YES YESUnited Kingdom YES NOUSA YES NOUruguay NO NOZambia YES NOOAPIBBM NO NOEC YES NO


Almost without exception, the respondents confirmed that changes might be made to a registration. The scope of such changes varied, but by and large, the permissible changes included transfer of rights, changes in name or address of applicant, holder or representative, change of representative, limitation of goods and services, division, recording of restrictions, recording of licences and levy of execution – in other words, changes essential to the legal status of the trademark. On the other hand, the strong consensus among the respondents was that changes involving the mark itself could only be effected in very limited and exceptional circumstances and, in general, the specification of goods and services could not be extended.


Only two respondents replied in the affirmative to this question, one of them stating that the changes must occur during the term of the trademark right.

SCT/14/5page 185


Where this question was responded to, it was in general to the effect that the changes required recording and publishing and that the changes entered into force after the date of such recording. In a certain number of responses, it was also stated that, depending upon the nature of the change, there might be a possibility of third party opposition to the change within a given period of time after publication.

SCT/14/5page 186

XIII. TIME LIMITS FIXED BY THE OFFICE


1. What kind of time limits is fixed by your IP office?

2. What is the duration of these time limits?

3. Can these time limits be extended?

4. Is continued processing provided for if a time limitunder question XIII.1 has expired?

5. Is reinstatement of rights provided for if a time limit under question XIII.1 has expired?

Algeria 2 months YES YES NOArmenia YES YES YESAustralia YES YES N/AAustria Usually 2

monthsYES YES YES

BangladeshBelarus 3 months YES NO NOBrazil YES YES YESBulgaria 3 months YES NO YESCanada Various YES NO NOChileChina YES NO NOColombia NO N/A N/ACosta Rica N/A N/A N/ACroatia None N/A N/A N/ACzech Rep. Usually 2

monthsYES NO YES

DenmarkDominicaEcuadorEl Salvador YES NO NOEstonia Minimum 2

monthsYES YES YES

Finland Usually 16 weeks not less than 4 weeks

YES N/A N/A

France 1 to 4 months YES YES YESGeorgia N/A N/A N/AGermany 1 to 2 months YES YES YESHungary Not less than

30 days up to 3 months

YES NO YES

Iran (Islamic Rep. of) NO NO NoIreland 3 months YES YES YESItalyJamaica 3 months YES YES YESJapan 40 days

(3 months for the person residing abroad)

YES NO NO

Kyrgyzstan None NO NO NOLithuania 3 months YES NI NOMadagascar NO YES YESMalta NO N/A N/AMauritius NO NO

SCT/14/5page 187

XIII. TIME LIMITS FIXED BY THE OFFICE


1. What kind of time limits is fixed by your IP office?

2. What is the duration of these time limits?

3. Can these time limits be extended?

4. Is continued processing provided for if a time limitunder question XIII.1 has expired?

5. Is reinstatement of rights provided for if a time limit under question XIII.1 has expired?

Mexico 2 months YES NO NOMonaco NOMoroccoOman N/A N/A N/ANew Zealand YES YES NONorwayPakistan 2 months YES NO NOPanama NO NO NOPeru 15 days to 2

monthsYES NO NO

Philippines YES NO NOPortugal In principle 1

monthYES YES YES

Rep. of Korea In principle 2 months

YES N/A N/A

Rep. of Moldova YES N/A N/ARomania 3 months NO NORussian FederationSaint Lucia 6 months to 1

yearNO YES NO

St. Vincent & the Grenadines

YES NO NO

SingaporeSlovakia NO NO NOSlovenia YES YES YESSpain YES YES YESSri Lanka N/A N/A N/ASudan 1 to 3 months YES YES YESSwaziland YES NO NOSwedenSwitzerland YES YES YESSyrian Arab Rep. 60 days NO NO NOThailand 90 days NO NO NOThe former Yugoslav Rep. of MacedoniaTrinidad & Tobago 3 months YES YES YESTunisia 2 months NO NO YESTurkey NO N/A N/AUkraine YES YES YESUnited Kingdom YES NO NOUSA NO NO YESUruguay NO YES NOZambia YES YES YESOAPIBBM Up to 6

monthsYES YES NO

EC YES NO YES

SCT/14/5page 188

1. Among others was mentioned rejection of an application and, in one special case, revocation of acceptance (one month to request a hearing from notification that the acceptance would otherwise be revoked). Some replies indicated time limits for statements in a two party procedure. Also, the opportunity to make observations in opposition or cancellation proceedings were indicated as well as remedy of deficiencies in other proceedings before the office, such as change in ownership etc. However, the majority stated that laws prescribed all the time limits.

5. If YES, what are the requirements for reinstatement of rights?

Where respondents replied to this question, it was indicated that the party to the proceedings would be required to justify the failure to observe the time limit in question – generally, force majeure or other impediment independent of the applicant or representative - and prove that all due care had been exercised.

[End of document]

Documents

SCT/14/5: Summary of Replies to the Questionnaire on ...€¦ · Web viewAlgeria N/A Armenia Australia NO 3 months Austria N/A Bangladesh YES 2 months Belarus Brazil NO 4 years