European Communities Trade Mark Association 7 October 2015

ECTA Autumn Council Meeting Lisbon

Convergence Project 3: Distinctiveness

New UDRP Rules and WIPO Supplemental rules

ECTA-WIPO WORKSHOP

''MADRID INSIGHTS AND DOMAIN

NAME UPDATES''

REGISTER HERE

2

European Communities Trade Mark Association 7 October 2015

1. ECTA NEWS

1.1 ECTA AUTUMN COUNCIL MEETING LISBON

1.2 ECTA BRUSSELS MEETING 1.3 ECTA MEMBERS ATTENDANCES

1.4 ECTA-WIPO WORKSHOPS

2. LAW

2.1 TRADE MARK

2.1.1 FRANCE: PLAIN PACKAGING

2.1.2 CONVERGENCE PROJECT 3: DISTINCTIVENESS-

FIGURATIVE MARKS CONTAINING DESCRIPTIVE/NON-

DISTINCTIVE WORDS

2.2 COPYRIGHT

2.2.1 UK TO OPPOSE PAN-EUROPEAN LICENSING

2.3 DOMAIN NAMES

2.3.1 NEW UDRP RULES AND WIPO SUPPLEMENTAL RULES

2.3.2 ICANN– IPC ELECTIONS

3. CASE LAW

3.1 ON ABSOLUTE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL– GENERAL

COURT

3.1.1 CASE T-714/13 OF 8 SEPTEMBER 2015, GOLD CREST

LLC VS. OHIM

3.1.2 CASE T-143/14 OF 10 SEPTEMBER 2015, EE LTD VS.

OHIM

3.1.3 CASE T-633/13 OF 23 SEPTEMBER 2015, REED

EXHIBITIONS LTD VS. OHIM

3.1.4 CASE T-366/14 OF 25 SEPTEMBER 2015, AUGUST

STORCK VS. OHIM

3.1.5 CASE T-707/14 OF 25 SEPTEMBER 2015, GRUNDIG

MULTIMEDIA AG VS. OHIM

3.2 ON RELATIVE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL– GENERAL

COURT

3.2.1 CASE T-323/14 OF 17 SEPTEMBER 2015, BANKIA, SA VS.

OHIM – BANCO ACTIVOBANK (PORTUGAL), SA

3.2.2 CASE T-641/14 OF 24 SEPTEMBER 2015, ALEXANDRA

DELLMEIER VS. OHIM – DELL INC.

3.3 EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE

3.3.1 CASE C-681/13 OF 16 JULY 2015, DIAGEO BRANDS BV VS

SIMIRAMIDA -04 EOOD

3.3.2 CASE C-125/14 OF 3 SEPTEMBER 2015, IRON & SMITH

KFT VS UNILEVER NV

3.3.3 CASE C-215/14 OF 16 SEPTEMBER 2015, SOCIÉTÉ DES PRODUITS NESTLÉ VS CADBURY UK LTD

4. OFFICE PRACTICE

4.1 OHIM

4.1.1 LOSS OF 500 MILLION EURO A YEAR FOR SPORT

EQUIPMENT

4.1.2 THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA ,

CANADA, CHINA AND USA IN DESIGNVIEW

4.1.3 CANADA MADE TRADE MARK AVAILABLE FOR TMVIEW

4.1.4 OHIM ACADEMY WEBINARS

4.1.5 10TH CONFERENCE ON SPANISH COMMUNITY

TRADEMARK COURTS

4.2 WIPO

4.2.1 MADRID PROTOCOL: CHANGE IN THE AMOUNT OF

INDIVIDUAL FEE

4.2.2 PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALGERIA'S

ACCESSION TO THE MADRID PROTOCOL

4.3 NATIONAL OFFICES

4.3.1 SPECIALIZATION OF COURTS IN THE FIELD OF

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

Editorial team: Bárbara Díaz Alaminos, Jean-Jo Evrard and Daniela Derksen

TABLE OF CONTENTS Please note: there are hyperlinks to articles by clicking on the news title.

3

1.1 ECTA AUTUMN COUNCIL MEETING LISBON

From 14-17 October 2015, the 70th Autumn Council Meeting will be held in Lisbon.

The Meeting will be held at the Myriad by Sana Hotel, where committee members will be able to

register.

On 14 October 2015, the registration and information desk will be available from 15.00– 20.00.

On 15 October 2015, the registration and information desk will be available from 08.00-19.00.

On 16 October 2015, the registration and information desk will be available from 08.00– 18.00.

Further information can be found HERE.

1.2 ECTA BRUSSELS MEETINGS

On 17 September 2015, the ECTA delegation met with representatives from the European

Institutions in Brussels. Following these meetings, ECTA held, on 18 September 2015, its ECTA

Management Committee meeting in Brussels.

1.3 ECTA MEMBERS ATTENDANCES

(i) The following meeting has been attended by ECTA, in September 2015:

- Digital Copyright Harmonisation in the EU, has been attended by Bárbara Díaz Alaminos, ECTA

Manager Legal Affairs, Max Oker-Blom, ECTA General Secretary and Daniela Derksen, ECTA legal

Communicator, on 16 September 2015.

A report will soon be available for ECTA members.

(ii) The following meetings will be attended by ECTA members, in October 2015:

- OHIM 14th LM Trade Marks , will be attended by Benjamin Fontaine, Chair of the Geographical

Indications Committee, on 6-7 October 2015;

- OHIM 14th LM Designs, will be attended by António Andrade, Chair of the Design Committee, on

13-14 October 2015;

- AIPPI World IP Congress, will be attended by Elena Miller, Member of the Harmonization

Committee, on 10-14 October 2015 in Rio de Janeiro;

- Worldwide Symposium on Geographical Indications, Benjamin Fontaine, Chair of the Geographical

Indications Committee, will be a speaker and Judit Lantos, Vice-Chair of the WIPO-Link Committee

will attend on 20-22 October in Budapest.

1. ECTA NEWS

4

1.4 ECTA-WIPO WORKSHOPS

- On 26 October 2015, ECTA will hold a workshop on ’’Madrid Insights and Domain Name Updates’’

together with the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO). The event will be held in the headquar-

ters of WIPO in Geneva.

The full programme and registration can be found HERE.

- On 16 October 2015, during the Autumn Council Meeting in Lisbon, ECTA will hold an ECTA-

WIPO workshop on the Hague System.

The full programme and registration can be found HERE.

1. ECTA NEWS

5

2.1 TRADE MARK

2.1.1 FRANCE: PLAIN PACKAGING

On 10 September 2015, the French government reintroduced the Plain Packaging provisions which

had been formerly removed by the French Committee.

After the rejection of the Plain Packaging provision by the Senate, a joint committee including 7

Members of parliament and 7 Senators will decide on the provisions.

The Health Minister has stated that the amendments before the National Assembly will be

reintroduced.

Further information can be found HERE.

2.1.2 CONVERGENCE PROJECT 3: DISTINCTIVENESS- FIGURATIVE MARKS CONTAINING

DESCRIPTIVE/NON-DISTINCTIVE WORDS

The CP3 Common Communication, including the CP3 Common Practice, and the Frequently Asked

Questions (FAQ) have been published by all implementing offices.

In 2012, a survey was sent to the offices of the CP3 Working Group, regarding 100 fictitious

examples of figurative trade marks which contain descriptive/non-distinctive words.

The results of the survey indicated that there was a divergence between the offices on what was

regarded to be a distinctive or devoid of distinctiveness in accordance with their practice.

In 2015, the landscape changed and the offices are much more concentrated around the mean, in

which the most ‘lenient’ office has as few as 25 trade marks more than the ‘strictest’ office.

2.2 COPYRIGHT

2.2.1 UK TO OPPOSE PAN-EUROPEAN LICENSING

On 9 September 2015, the Culture Secretary John Whittingdale disclosed to a parliamentary

committee, that while it strongly support the Digital Single Market plans, it would not support the

initiative of having a pan-European licensing.

Nevertheless, the UK would still support the initiative regarding the ‘portability’ of content. As it would

grant subscribers of paid-services such as Netflix to access content, while travelling abroad.

Further information is available HERE.

2. LAW

6

2.3 DOMAIN NAMES

2.3.1 NEW UDRP RULES AND WIPO SUPPLEMENTAL RULES

From 31 July 2015 on, new UDRP and WIPO Supplemental rules concerning domain name dispute

resolution have come into effect.

The new rules were created due to concerns about the improper transfer of domain names during

UDRP proceedings.

The new rules provide, amongst others, the Standard Settlement Form, which summarizes the

essential terms of the parties separate settlement agreement.

Furthermore a four-day extension term of the response due date has been supplied upon request of

the respondent.

Further information is available HERE.

2.3.2 ICANN- IPC ELECTIONS

Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC), which is the stakeholder group and constituencies of the

Generic Names Supporting Organisation (GNSO), held elections.

The IPC has the responsibility to advice on policy issues to ICANN, which relate to the management

of the domain name system.

Further information on the IPC Constituency is available HERE.

2. LAW

7

3. CASE LAW

3.1 ON ABSOLUTE GROUNDS OF REFUSAL– GENERAL COURT

3.1.1 Case T-714/13 of 8 September 2015, Gold Crest LLC vs. OHIM (contested decision: R-

2038/2012-2 of 8 October 2013)

Trade mark

MIGHTY BRIGHT

Trade mark applied for

Class: 11

Decision: The trade mark is devoid of any distinctive character.

The words ‘mighty’ and ‘bright’ mean ‘having or indicating might; powerful or strong’ and ‘emitting or reflecting

much light; shining’ respectively (para. 16).

The combination of the two words ‘mighty’ and ‘bright’ is not capable, in view of the goods designated, of

creating distinctiveness than each of its components taken on its own. Given that, in relation to lights and light

bulbs, the semantic contents of those words are broadly synonymous, their juxtaposition appears to be a

duplication, which results in the mutual reinforcement of the two words. The relevant public will not therefore

need to take ‘several mental steps’ in order to grasp the meaning of the mark applied for (para. 18).

The Board of Appeal's decision is upheld.

3.1.2 Case T-143/14 of 10 September 2015, EE Ltd vs. OHIM (contested decision: R-703/2013-2 of 27 November 2013)

Trade mark

Trade mark applied for

Classes: 7,9,16,25,35 to 39,41,42,45

Decision: The trade mark is devoid of any distinctive character.

In the context of a global assessment of the individual features which may be taken into account, the

combination of the specific Pantone colour yellow No 012 with white particles in a certain infinite pattern is

nothing more the sum of its banal and non-distinctive features and the sign applied for, as a whole, could not

function as an indicator of origin for any of the goods or services applied for (para. 57).

The Board of Appeal's decision is upheld.

8

3. CASE LAW

3.1 ON ABSOLUTE GROUNDS OF REFUSAL– GENERAL COURT

3.1.3 Case T-633/13 of 23 September 2015, Reed Exhibitions Ltd vs. OHIM (contested decision: R-

1544/2012-5 of 10 September 2013)

Trade mark

INFOSECURITY

Trade mark applied for

Classes: 16,35,41

Decision: Article 7(1)(e) of Regulation No 207/2009 provides that « the following shall not be registered: ...

signs which consist exclusively of ... the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result (para.

35). Regard being had to its wording and to the public policy interest which it pursues, it must be concluded

that it applies to any sign, whether two-or three-dimensional, where all the essential characteristics of the sign

perform a technical function (para. 39).

The marks at issue are figurative marks representing three-dimensional shapes, namely, the handles of some

of the knives or utensils marketed by the applicant. Consequently, in the light of all the relevant elements, the

black dots affixed to those handles correspond to dents. The marks at issue are consequently made up of

shapes of goods, within the meaning of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009 (para. 53).

The dents are necessary to obtain a technical result, namely preventing the hand holding the knife from

slipping accidentally. The non-skid structure of that array of dents is supported by the various invention patents

held by the applicant (para. 57). The registrations of the marks at issue have to be declared invalid, pursuant

to Article 7(1)(e)(ii), in so far as the essential characteristics of the signs at issue consist exclusively of the

shape of goods necessary to obtain a technical result (para. 66).

The Board of Appeal's decision is upheld.

3.1.4 Case T-366/14 of 25 September 2015, August Storck vs. OHIM (contested decision: R- 966/2013-1 of 27 February 2014)

Trade mark

2good

Trade mark applied for

Class: 30

Decision: The trade mark is devoid of any distinctive character.

When seeing the combination of the number 2 and the word ‘good’, the relevant public will understand the

number as ‘too’ and not ‘two’ or ‘to’, as that public will think of the meaning of the expression ‘too good’ in

relation to the goods covered. Thus, the number 2, combined with the word ‘good’, will be easily -

9

3. CASE LAW

and immediately understood by the relevant public as meaning ‘too’ (para. 24).

The mark sought does not have any particular originality or salience; nor does it require a minimum

interpretative effort or trigger any particular cognitive process on the part of the relevant public; rather, it is

merely an ordinary advertising slogan making the point that the goods covered by the mark sought are

excellent (too good) (para.30).

The Board of Appeal's decision is upheld.

3.1.5 Case T-707/14 of 25 September 2015, Grundig Multimedia AG vs. OHIM (contested decision:

R-172/2014-1 of 9 July 2014)

Trade mark

DetergentOptimiser

Trade mark applied for

Class: 7

Decision: The trade mark is descriptive.

Even if the meaning of the word ‘optimiser’ could, if it were looked at in isolation, require an interpretative effort

on the part of the relevant public and refer, for example, to a person as well as to a machine, that is not the

case where it is associated with the word ‘detergent’ and relates to appliances for cleaning textiles, clothing,

dishes, floors or carpets. Therefore, the mark DetergentOptimiser describes, for the relevant public, the goods

at issue as enabling an optimal use of detergent without the understanding of the message thus expressed

requiring any particular interpretation on the part of that public (para. 22).

The Board of Appeal's decision is upheld.

10

3. CASE LAW

3.2 ON RELATIVE GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL– GENERAL COURT

3.2.1 Case T-323/14 of 17 September 2015, Bankia, SA vs. OHIM – Banco ActivoBank (Portugal),

SA (contested decisions: R-649/2013-2 and R-744/2013-2 of 14 February 2014)

Trade marks

BANKY

Earlier trade mark Trade mark applied for

Class: 36

Decision: 1. The trade marks are visually (para. 59 to 66), aurally (para. 67 to 69) and conceptually (para. 70

to 71) similar.

2. There is no similarity between the ‘financial and banking services’ in Class 36 and the ‘real estate services’

in Class 36 since, even though financial and banking services may be necessary in order to use real estate

services, they are not so necessary that consumers will consider that the same undertaking was responsible

for those financial services and real estate services (para. 38).

The Board of Appeal's decision is annulled in part.

3.2.2 Case T-641/14 of 24 September 2015, Alexandra Dellmeier vs. OHIM – Dell Inc. (contested

decision: R-966/2013-2 of 4 June 2014)

Trade marks

LEXDELL

Earlier trade mark Trade mark applied for

Classes: 9, 37, 40, 41, 42, 45

Decision: The earlier mark enjoys a reputation for computer hardware in Class 9 and for the services in

Classes 37, 40 and 42 (para. 21 and 22).

The registration of the trade mark applied for is refused on the basis of article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009

with regard to the services in Class 41 and 45. And the services in Class 45. The mark applied for would take

unfair advantage of the earlier mark. Among the reasons, it is necessary to point out the degree of closeness

between legal services in respect of intellectual property, on the one hand, and the technology which forms the

subject-matter of the intellectual property, for which the intervener is known through its goods and patents, on

the other hand. In view of the frequent use of the word ‘lex’ in the context of legal services, the relevant public

which the services at issue have in common might make a link between the services of that kind covered by

the mark applied for and the reputation which the earlier mark enjoys. That public might even understand the

mark applied for as alluding to legal services offered by the intervener or licensed by it (para. 24).

not reproduce the applicant’s name word for word, but only a part of that name (para. 27).

11

3. CASE LAW

The applicant invokes due cause for the use of the mark applied for since, first, she obtained registration of

that mark in Germany in 2001 for legal services and, secondly, that mark is a combination of her name and

that of her father (para. 26). However, neither of those arguments can succeed. In particular, first, even though

the applicant obtained registration of the mark applied for in a Member State, that fact cannot allow her to

circumvent Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 in respect of the whole of the territory of the European

Union. Next, the mark applied for does not reproduce the applicant’s name word for word, but only a part of

that name (para. 27).

3.3 EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE

3.3.1 Case C-681/13 of 16 July 2015, Diageo Brands BV vs Simiramida -04 EOOD

The Court replies to questions referred by the Hoge Raad der Nedelanden ( Dutch Supreme Court) relating to

the interpretation of Article 34(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction

and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, and of Article 14 of

Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of

intellectual property rights.

The Court’s replies are as follows:

1. Article 34(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the

recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that

the fact that a judgment given in a Member State is contrary to EU law does not justify that judgment’s not

being recognised in another Member State on the grounds that it infringes public policy in that State where the

error of law relied on does not constitute a manifest breach of a rule of law regarded as essential in the EU

legal order and therefore in the legal order of the Member State in which recognition is sought or of a right

recognised as being fundamental in those legal orders. That is not the case of an error affecting the

application of a provision such as Article 5(3) of Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate

the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the European

Economic Area of 2 May 1992.

When determining whether there is a manifest breach of public policy in the State in which recognition is

sought, the court of that State must take account of the fact that, save where specific circumstances make it

too difficult, or impossible, to make use of the legal remedies in the Member State of origin, the individuals

concerned must avail themselves of all the legal remedies available in that Member State with a view to

preventing such a breach before it occurs.

2. Article 14 of Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the

enforcement of intellectual property rights must be interpreted as applying to the legal costs incurred by the

parties in the context of an action for damages, brought in a Member State, to compensate for the injury

caused as a result of a seizure carried out in another Member State, which was intended to prevent an

infringement of an intellectual property right, when, in connection with that action, a question arises concerning

the recognition of a judgment given in that other Member State declaring that seizure to be unjustified.

12

3. CASE LAW

3.3.2 Case C-125/14 of 3 September 2015, Iron & Smith kft vs Unilever NV

The Court replies to questions referred by the the Fvarosi Törvényszék (Budapest Municipal Court, Hungary)

relating to the interpretation of Article 4(4) of Directive 2008/95/EC.

The Court’s replies are as follows:

1. Article 4(3) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to

approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that, if the

reputation of an earlier Community mark is established in a substantial part of the territory of the European

Union, which may, in some circumstances, coincide with the territory of a single Member State, which does not

have to be the State in which the application for the later national mark was filed, it must be held that that mark

has a reputation in the European Union. The criteria laid down by the case-law concerning the genuine use of

the Community trade mark are not relevant, as such, in order to establish the existence of a ‘reputation’ within

the meaning of Article 4(3) thereof.

2. If the earlier Community trade mark has already acquired a reputation in a substantial part of the territory of

the European Union, but not with the relevant public in the Member State in which registration of the later

national mark concerned by the opposition has been applied for, the proprietor of the Community trade mark

may benefit from the protection introduced by Article 4(3) of Directive 2008/95 where it is shown that a

commercially significant part of that public is familiar with that mark, makes a connection between it and the

later national mark, and that there is, taking account of all the relevant factors in the case, either actual and

present injury to its mark, for the purposes of that provision or, failing that, a serious risk that such injury may

occur in the future.

3.3.3 Case C-215/14 of 16 September 2015, Société des Produits Nestlé vs Cadbury UK Ltd

The Court replies to questions referred by the High Court of Justice of England & Wales, Chancery Division,

Intellectual Property (United Kingdom) relating to the interpretation of of Article 3(1)(b) and (e)(i) and (ii) of

Directive 2008/95/EC.

The Court’s replies are as follows:

1. Article 3(1)(e) of Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008

to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as precluding

registration as a trade mark of a sign consisting of the shape of goods where that shape contains three

essential features, one of which results from the nature of the goods themselves and two of which are

necessary to obtain a technical result, provided, however, that at least one of the grounds for refusal of

registration set out in that provision is fully applicable to the shape at issue.

2. Article 3(1)(e)(ii) of Directive 2008/95, under which registration may be refused of signs consisting

exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result, must be interpreted as

referring only to the manner in which the goods at issue function and it does not apply to the manner in which

the goods are manufactured.

13

3. CASE LAW

3. In order to obtain registration of a trade mark which has acquired a distinctive character following the use

which has been made of it within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Directive 2008/95, regardless of whether that

use is as part of another registered trade mark or in conjunction with such a mark, the trade mark applicant

must prove that the relevant class of persons perceive the goods or services designated exclusively by the

mark applied for, as opposed to any other mark which might also be present, as originating from a particular

company.

14

4.1 OHIM

4.1.1 LOSS OF 500 MILLION EURO A YEAR FOR SPORT EQUIPMENT

In a study which was conducted by the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM), it

has shown that due to counterfeiting the sports equipment industry has a loss of 500 million eu-

ros a year.

It furthermore reports that 2,800 jobs are lost in the sports equipment industry in Europe, since

manufacturers have sold less due to counterfeiting and as a consequence employ less people.

Further information is available HERE.

4.1.2 THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA , CANADA, CHINA AND USA IN

DESIGNVIEW

On 14 September 2015, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), the State Intellectual

Property Office of the People’s Republic of China (SIPO) and the United States Patent and

Trademark Office (USPTO) made their design data available for DesignView.

Moreover, on 5 October 2015, the State Office of Industrial Property (SOIP) of the Former

Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia made their design data available for DesignView.

With the total addition of designs contributed by SOIP, CIPO, SIPO and USPTO, DesignView is

now providing access and information to nearly 8,7 million industrial designs,

Further information on SOIP joining DesignView, is available HERE.

Further information on CIPO, SIPO and USPTO joining DesignView, is available HERE.

4.1.3 CANADA MADE TRADE MARK AVAILABLE FOR TMVIEW

On 14 September 2015, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) made their trade mark

available for the TMview search tool.

With Canada joining TMview, the total number of participating offices is 41, and provides for

more than 27,4 million trade marks.

Further information is available HERE.

4.1.4 OHIM ACADEMY WEBINARS

OHIM will hold the following publicly available webinars on 20 October 2015:

(i) Effective Dispute Resolution: What is it and how to weigh-up the options?;

(ii) Convergence Programme 3;

(iii) How to efficiently file appeals and follow up the procedures.

Further information is available HERE.

4. Office Practice 4. OFFICE PRACTICE

15

4.1.5 10TH CONFERENCE ON SPANISH COMMUNITY TRADEMARK COURTS

On 19 and 29 November 2015, Alicante’s Bar will collaborate with OHIM to organize the tenth

Conference on Spanish Community Trademark Courts.

The conference will be held in Alicante Spain at the premises of Alicante’s bar.

Further information is available HERE.

4.2 WIPO

4.2.1 MADRID PROTOCOL: CHANGE IN THE AMOUNT OF INDIVIDUAL FEE

The Director General of WIPO has established new amounts of the individual fee to be paid when Tajikstan is designated in an international application: (i) in an international application or (ii) in respect of the renewal of an international registration. The change will take effect on 30 October 2015. The information notice is available HERE.

4.2.2 PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALGERIA’S ACCESSION TO THE MADRID PROTOCOL

On 31 July 2015, the Algerian Government deposited to the Director of WIPO its instrument of

accession to the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International

Registration of Marks.

The protocol will enter into force on 31 October 2015.

Including the accession of Algeria, a total of 95 Contracting Parties have accessed the Protocol.

As a consequence of the accession of Algeria, all members of the Madrid Union will be

Contracting Parties to the Protocol, or also to the Agreement.

This implies, in practical terms, that the Protocol will govern all the designations in the

International register.

Further information is available HERE.

4. OFFICE PRACTICE

16

4.3 NATIONAL OFFICES

4.3.1 SPECIALIZATION OF COURTS IN THE FIELD OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE

SLOVAK REPUBLIC

On 22 September 2015, the eighth meeting of the Interdepartmental Commission for the coordi-

nation of cooperation in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy was held in Banská Bystrica.

During this meeting, a decision was made on the specialization of courts in the field of intellectual

property.

It introduces the Civil Appeals Code, which will take effect on 1 July 2016.

Furthermore, disputes regarding industrial property, will be solely decided by the competent Dis-

trict Court in Banská Bystrica and by the court of appeals of the Regional Court in Banská Bystri-

ca.

For copyright disputes and/or disputes which arise from unfair competition , three courts of first

instance shall be relevant: District Court of Bratislava I, District Court in Banská Bystrica and

District Court of Košice I.

Further information is available HERE.

4. OFFICE PRACTICE