E

WIPO
GENEVA

WO/INF/108 ORIGINAL:English DATE:December1994

WORLDINTELLECTUALPROPERTYORGANIZATION

CHARACTERMERCHANDISING

ReportpreparedbytheInternationalBureau1

The1992/1993ProgramandBudgetoftheWorldIntellectualPropertyOrganization(document AB/XXII/2)providesinItem04(7)thatTheInternationalBureauwill,onthebasisofthe analysisitwillhavecarriedoutin1991ontheworldsituationinrespectofthelawsapplicable tocharactermerchandising(thatis,theuseofthename,picture,voiceandstatementsofareal orfictitiouspersonalitytopromotethesaleanduseofcertainproductsorservices),prepareand publishareportonthistopic.Thepresentdocumentanditsannexesconstitutethesaidreport.

WO/INF/108 page2 TABLEOFCONTENTS INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................4

I. THENOTIONOFCHARACTER..........................................................................4

(a) Definition.................................................................................................................4
(b) SourcesandPrimaryUseofCharacters ..................................................................4
(i) FictionalCharacters ......................................................................................4
(ii) RealPersons...................................................................................................5
II. THECONCEPTOFCHARACTERMERCHANDISING ....................................6

(a) Definition.................................................................................................................6
(b) ABriefHistoryofCharacterMerchandising ..........................................................6
(c) TypesofCharacterMerchandising..........................................................................8
(i) MerchandisingofFictionalCharacters.........................................................8
(ii) PersonalityMerchandising ............................................................................9
(iii) ImageMerchandising.....................................................................................9
III. THELAWFULMERCHANDISINGOFACHARACTER..........................................10
(a) TheRightsAttachedtoaCharacter.......................................................................10
(b) OwnershipoftheRightsAttachedtoaCharacter .................................................10
(c) MeansofLawfulMerchandisingofaCharacter ...................................................11
(i) FictionalCharacters ....................................................................................11
(ii) RealPersons.................................................................................................13
IV. FORMSOFLEGALPROTECTION....................................................................13
A. (a) INTELLECTUALPROPERTYRIGHTS.............................................................14

Copyright ...............................................................................................................14
(i) Introduction..................................................................................................14
(ii) Protectability................................................................................................16
FictionalCharacters ....................................................................................16
RealPersons.................................................................................................17
(b) IndustrialDesigns ..................................................................................................18
(i) Introduction..................................................................................................18
(ii) Protectability................................................................................................18
(c) TrademarksandServiceMarks(Marks) ...............................................................19
(i) Introduction..................................................................................................19
(ii) Protectability................................................................................................20
(d) UnfairCompetition................................................................................................22
B. OTHERFORMSOFPROTECTION ...................................................................23

WO/INF/108 page3 V. A. (a) (b) (c) B. (a) (b) SCOPEOFPROTECTION...................................................................................24

RightsConferred....................................................................................................24
Copyright ...............................................................................................................24
IndustrialDesigns ..................................................................................................25
Marks .....................................................................................................................25
EnforcementofRights;MeasuresandRemedies .................................................26
Introduction............................................................................................................26
CivilSanctions.......................................................................................................27
(i) Injunctions 27
PreliminaryInjunction .................................................................................27
FinalInjunction............................................................................................27
(ii) AccompanyingMeasures..............................................................................27
(iii) Damages 28
(iv) RectificationandPublicationoftheCourtDecision ...................................28
RighttoSue ...........................................................................................................28
(i) InRespectofIntellectualPropertyRights ...................................................28
(ii) UnfairCompetition(andPassing-Off).........................................................29
MeasurestoSecureEvidence(Discovery) ............................................................30
(i) DescriptiveandPhysicalSeizures ...............................................................30
(ii) AntonPillerOrder .......................................................................................30
AcceleratedProceedings........................................................................................31
CriminalSanctions.................................................................................................31

(c)

(d)

(e) (f)

VI. GENERALCONCLUSION..................................................................................31
ANNEXI Copyright...........................................................................................................................1
IndustrialDesigns .............................................................................................................6
Trademarks .......................................................................................................................8
UnfairCompetition(IncludingPassing-Off) ..................................................................15
OtherFormsofProtection ..............................................................................................25
Remedies .........................................................................................................................31
RequirementsinRespectofAgreements .........................................................................32
ANNEXII LegislativeTexts................................................................................................................1

WO/INF/108 page4 INTRODUCTION PurposeoftheStudyandQuestionstobeExamined Thepresentstudyisintendedtoexaminethequestionofcharactermerchandising, whichcanbeconsideredasoneofthemostmodernmeansofincreasingtheappealofgoods orservicestopotentialcustomers. Inthatconnection,thefollowingquestionswillbeexamined: thenotionofcharacter(definition,sourcesandprimaryuse); theconceptofcharactermerchandising(definition,historyandtypes); thelawfulmerchandisingofacharacter; theformsofprotectionavailableforcharacters(relevanceofintellectualproperty and,incertaincases,ofpersonalityandpublicityrights); thescopeofprotection(rightsconferredandenforcementofthoserights (measuresandremediesavailable)).

Furthermore,thepresentstudyalsocontains(AnnexI)informationonprovisionsof lawsandjurisprudencerelevanttocharactermerchandisinginanumberofcountries (Australia,Canada,France,Germany,theUnitedKingdomandtheUnitedStatesofAmerica ontheonehandand,toalesserextent,Chile,India,JapanandNigeria).

I.

THENOTIONOFCHARACTER (a) Definition

Broadlyspeaking,thetermcharactercoversbothfictionalhumans(forexample, TarzanorJamesBond)ornon-humans(forexample,DonaldDuckorBugsBunny)andreal persons(forexample,famouspersonalitiesinthefilmormusicbusiness,sportsmen). Inthecontextofthemerchandisingofcharacters,itismainlytheessentialpersonality featureseasilyrecognizedbythepublicatlargewhichwillberelevant.Thosepersonality featuresare,forexample,thename,image,appearanceorvoiceofacharacterorsymbols permittingtherecognitionofsuchcharacters.

(b) SourcesandPrimaryUseofCharacters (i) FictionalCharacters Themainsourcesoffictionalcharactersare: literaryworks(suchasPinocchiobyCollodiorTarzanbyE.R.Burroughs); stripcartoons(suchasTintinbyHergorAstrixbyUderzoandGoscinny); artisticworks(suchaspaintings(MonaLisabyLeonardodaVinci))ordrawings (thepandaoftheWorldWideFundforNature(WWF)ortheyoungboyFido

WO/INF/108 page5 DidobyJoanna FerroneandSusanRose); cinematographicworks(suchasCrocodileDundee,KingKong,RamboorE.T. wihrespecttomovies,McGyverorColumbowithrespecttotelevisionseriesor t Bambiwithrespecttomotionpicturecartoons).

Itshouldbenotedthat,inthecaseofcinematographicworks,thecharactermay,andin factoftendoesoriginateinaliterarywork(suchasthecharacterOliverTwistby Charles Dickens)orinastripcartoon(suchasthecharacterBatman). Asregardstheprimaryuseofafictionalcharacter,itcaninmostcasesbereferredtoas anentertainmentfunction.Suchacharactermayappearinanovel,ataleorastripcartoon (forexample,thecharacterTarzaninthenovelentitledTarzan,theLordoftheJungle,the characterMr.BrowninthetaleentitledSquirrelNutkinorthecharactersnamed James BondorTintin),andthesuccessgainedbytheworkdepictingthecharactergenerally leadstonewstories.Suchprimaryusewillbemadebythecreatorofthecharacter,although, whereacharacterhasreachedahighdegreeofreputationandthecreatorhasdied,theheirsif any,ortheholdersofthepublishingrights,mayorganizebymeansofcontractsthesurvival ofthecharacterinnewstories(forexample,thebooksfeaturingJamesBondafterthedeathof lanFleming).Othercreators,onthecontrary,maywishthatthecharacterstheyhavecreated shouldnotbethesubjectofnewstoriesaftertheirdeath(forexample,Herg,thecreatorof Tintin).Thesituationissomewhatdifferentinthecaseofcinematographicworks,whereitis seldomthecreatorofacharacter(themakeroftheoriginaldrawingsorscripts)whomakes theprimaryuse(butexceptionsdoexist,suchasthelittlemancharactercreatedby Charlie Chaplin). Inothercases,theprimaryusesofafictionalcharactercansometimesbereferredtoas promotional,advertisingandrecognitionfunctions.Thiswillconcern,forexample, characterswhicharecloselylinkedtoacertaincompany(suchastheMichelinMan,the Exxon(Esso)tigerorthePeugeotlion),toacertainproduct(suchasthecharacter Johnnie WalkertoaScotchwhisky)ortoagivenevent(suchasthemascotsusedto personalizeOlympicGamesorWorldCupfootball).Thosecharactersarecreatedwitha viewtopopularizinglegalentities,productsorservices,andactivities.Generally,theprimary usewillnotoriginatefromthecreatorofthecharacter,i.e.,thepersonentrustedwiththetask ofcreatingthecharacter.

(ii) RealPersons Themainsources,wherethecharacterisarealperson,arethemovieandshow businessesandsportingactivities.Inthecaseofrealpersons,oneshouldspeakofprimary activityinpreferencetoprimaryuse.Thedifficultywithrealpersonsisthatactors,for example,mayenjoyareputationbothaspersonsandasthecharactertheymayhave portrayedinamovieortelevisionseries.Insomecases,therealpersonisonlyreferredto underthenameofthecharacterportrayed(seedevelopmentsbelowonthetypesofcharacter merchandising).

WO/INF/108 page6 II. THECONCEPTOFCHARACTERMERCHANDISING (a) Definition

Charactermerchandisingcanbedefinedastheadaptationorsecondaryexploitation,by thecreatorofafictionalcharacterorbyarealpersonorbyoneorseveralauthorizedthird parties,oftheessentialpersonalityfeatures(suchasthename,imageorappearance)ofa characterinrelationtovariousgoodsand/orserviceswithaviewtocreatinginprospective customersadesiretoacquirethosegoodsand/ortousethoseservicesbecauseofthe customersaffinitywiththatcharacter. Itshouldalreadybeemphasizedthatthepersonorlegalentitywhichwillorganizethe merchandisingactivity(themerchandiser)willveryseldombethecreatorofthefictional characterortherealpersonconcerned.Thevariouspropertyorpersonalityrightsvestingin thecharacterwillbethesubjectofcontracts(suchastransferorlicenseagreementsorproduct orserviceendorsementagreements)enablingoneorseveralinterestedthirdpartiestobe regardedasauthorizedusersofthecharacter. Thefollowingexamplesofcharactermerchandisingcanbegiven: atoyisthethree-dimensionalreproductionofthefictionalcharacter
Mickey Mouse;
aT-shirtbearsthenameorimageofthefictionalcharactersNinjaTurtles; thelabelattachedtoaperfumebottlebearsthenameAlainDelon; tennisshoesbearthenameAndrAgassi; anadvertisingmoviecampaignforthedrinkCocaColaLightshowsthepopstar EltonJohndrinkingCocaColaLight;

(b) ABriefHistoryofCharacterMerchandising Asanorganizedsystem,charactermerchandisingoriginatedandwasinitiatedinthe UnitedStatesofAmericainthe1930sintheWaltDisneyStudiosinBurbank(California). Whenthiscompanycreateditscartooncharacters(Mickey,Minnie,Donald),oneofits employees,KayKamen,establishedadepartmentspecializedinthesecondarycommercial exploitationofthosecharactersand,tothesurpriseofmost,succeededingrantingan importantnumberoflicensesforthemanufactureanddistributionoflow-pricedmassmarket merchandise(posters,T-shirts,toys,buttons,badges,drinks). Ofcourse,theideaofsecondaryexploitationofthereputationofacharacterexisted beforethetwentiethcentury,butthereasonswerenotdirectlycommercial.InSouthEast Asia,forexample,thereligiouscharactersofRamayana,suchasPrinceRama,Vishnuand Sita,haveforcenturiesbeenrepresentedintheformofsculptures,puppetsortoys. Furthermore,inmorerecenttimes(late19thcentury),someindustrialists,withaviewto popularizingthegoodstheymanufactured,decidedtocreatefictionalcharacterswhichwould berepresentedonthegoods,thepackagingoranydocumentsandwouldbeusedtogenerate secondaryexploitationforfunctionalorornamentalgoodssuchasdecorativeplates,articles ofclothing,clocks,puppets,etc.(forexample,inFrance,thecharacterPierrotGourmand(a famousmarkforlollipops)ortheMichelinManofthetiremanufacturer.Furthermore,the

WO/INF/108 page7 exploitationofliterarycharactersprobablystartedwiththeworksofBeatrixPotter(thebooks PeterRabbitandSquirrelNutkinwiththeanimalcharacterswhichbecameandstillare representedintheformofsofttoysorotherarticlesforchildren)orwiththeworkof Lewis Carroll(AliceinWonderland),thecharactersofwhichalsobecamesofttoysandwere lateradaptedintoamotionpicturecartoon. Thisphenomenondevelopedrapidlyduringthe20thcentury.Inthe1950s,political, movieandshow-businesspersonalitiesauthorized,forexample,thereproductionoftheir namesorimagesonarticlesofclothing(so-calledtie-inadvertising).Inthe1970sandthe 1980s,merchandisingprogramsweresetuponthebasisoffamouscharactersfromfilms (forexample.StarWars,E.T.orRambo).Thefinancialconsequencesareverysignificant since,forexample,theWaltDisneyMerchandisingDivisionin1978soldover$27millionin merchandisedgoodsbearingthenamesorimagesofthefamouscharacterscreatedintheir studios,andin1979KennerProductssoldover$100millioninmerchandisedgoodsrelating tothecharactersdepictedinthemovieStarWars. Furthermore,therangeofgoodsorservicescoveredbymerchandisingexpanded considerablysince,forexample,intheUnitedStatesofAmerica,itconcerns*atleast29of the42classesoftheInternationalClassificationofGoodsandServicesestablishedbythe NiceAgreement. Today,merchandisingprograms(whetherornottheyincludetheuseoftheessential personalityfeaturesofacharacter)mayconcern universities(intheUnitedStatesofAmerica,merchandisingoftheUniversityof CaliforniainLosAngeleswithitssymbolU.C.L.A.); organizations(advertisingcampaignforAmnestyInternationalinFrancewiththe participationoffamousfilmactors,ormerchandisingoftherepresentationofa pandabytheWorldWideFundforNature(WWF)); sportsevents(merchandisingofthemascotsofthe1992OlympicGamesin Albertville(France)andBarcelona(Spain)); socialevents(weddingofPrinceCharlesandLadyDianaintheUnited Kingdom); artexhibitions(merchandisingoftheimagesofVanGoghorToulouse-Lautrec); naturalevents(merchandisinginconnectionwithHalleysComet),scientific events(thecomicstripcharacterSnoopywasthemascotofthefirstAmerican astronauts); personalitiesinmanyfieldsofactivity(actors,popstars,sportsmen,etc.,whose namesandimagesarereproducedonvariousgoods,packaging,documentsor othermaterial).

Thishistoricalintroductioncanbeconcludedwithfourexamplesshowingtheimpact andimportanceofcharactermerchandising.Firstly,intheUnitedStatesofAmerica,afterthe wideadvertisingcampaignmadebytheIBMCompanyforitscomputers,usingalook-alike ofCharlieChaplin,thecharacterwhoappearedwassometimesreferredtonolongeras CharlieChaplinbutastheIBMGuy.Secondly,inthecaseoftheEuroDisneyParkwhich wasinauguratedinApril1992nearParis,acompanyobtained,forthewholeofEurope,the exclusiverighttoreproducetheWaltDisneycharacters.Thirdly,theprofitsmadeinFrance fromtherecentToulouse-Lautrecretrospectiveexhibition(mainlybythesalesof merchandisedproductsrelatingtotheimageofthepainter)enabledtheLouvreMuseumto purchaseanimportantpaintingforitscollection.Finally,theSonyCorporationhasrecently

WO/INF/108 page8 formedacharactermerchandisingunitthatwillsellproductsbasedonitsmusic,filmand videobusinesses.

(c)

TypesofCharacterMerchandising

Fromacommercialormarketingpointofview,charactermerchandisingcanprobably bedealtwithinasinglecategory.However,fromthelegalpointofviewitisimportantto differentiatebetweenthevarioussubjectsofmerchandising,sincethescopeanddurationof legalprotectionmayvaryaccordingtothesubjectinvolved. Twomaincategoriesexistdependingonwhetherthemerchandisinginvolvestheuseof fictionalcharactersorofrealpersonalities(generallyreferredtoaspersonality merchandising).Betweenthosetwocategories,athirdhybridcategoryexistswhichis generallyreferredtoasimagemerchandising.

(i) MerchandisingofFictionalCharacters Thisistheoldestandthebestknownformofmerchandising.Itinvolvestheuseofthe essentialpersonalityfeatures(name,image,etc.)offictionalcharactersinthemarketing and/oradvertisingofgoodsorservices. Originally,thepracticeofcharactermerchandising,asanorganizedsystemof promotion,developedasameansofexploitingthepopularityofcartooncharacters,drawings ofattractivefiguresandthelike.Suchcartooncharactersoriginated: inaliteraryworkbeingadaptedtothecartoonform(forthepurposeofamovieor acomicstrip)suchasthecharactersPinocchioorAliceinWonderland; inaworkcreatedasacartooncharacter,originallyforfilms(MickeyMouse, DonaldDuck,Pluto)orforcomicstrips(Tintin,Snoopy,Astrix,Batman); inafilmcharacter,laterreproducedoradaptedasacartoonforadvertisingand merchandisingpurposes(thecharacterZorroorevenarealcreaturesuchasthe sharkinthefilmJaws); inacartooncharactercreatedmainlyforthepurposeofmerchandisingandnot, originally,intendedforamovieorcomicstrip(forexample,thecharacterFido Dido,exploitedbyFidoDido,Inc.foranumberofgoodsincludingthedrink Seven-Upwhichwasthesubjectofaworldwideadvertisingcampaign,orthe numerousmascotscreatedandusedinrespectofvariousevents,suchassports competitions); inapuppetordollcharacterdesignedforafilmoratelevisionshow(forexample, thecharacterE.T.,theGremlinsortheMuppets).

Charactermerchandisingwithcartooncharactersinvolvesmainlytheuseofthename, imageandappearanceofthecharacter.Theappearancemayinvolvetwo-dimensional reproduction(drawings,stickers,etc.)orthree-dimensionalreproduction(dolls,keyrings, etc.).

WO/INF/108 page9 (ii) PersonalityMerchandising

Thismorerecentformofmerchandisinginvolvestheuseoftheessentialattributes (name,image,voiceandotherpersonalityfeatures)ofrealpersons(inotherwords,thetrue identityofanindividual)inthemarketingand/oradvertisingofgoodsandservices.In general,therealpersonwhoseattributesarecommercializediswellknowntothepublicat large;thisisthereasonwhythisformofmerchandisinghassometimesbeenreferredtoas reputationmerchandising.Infact,fromacommercialpointofview,merchandisersbelieve thatthemainreasonforapersontobuylow-pricedmassgoods(mugs,scarves,badges,T shirts,etc.)isnotbecauseoftheproductitselfbutbecausethenameorimageofacelebrity appealingtothatpersonisreproducedontheproduct. Thiscategorycanbesubdividedintotwoforms.Thefirstformconsistsintheuseof thename,image(intwoorthreedimensions)orsymbolofarealperson.Thisformrelates mainlytofamouspersonsinthefilmormusicindustries.However,personsconnectedwith otherfieldsofactivitymaybeconcerned(forexample,membersofaroyalfamily).As indicatedabove,itisnotsomuchtheproductwhichisofprincipalimportancetothe consumer,butratherthenameorimagethatitbearsisthemainmarketingandadvertising vehicle.Thesecondformoccurswherespecialistsincertainfields,suchasfamoussportsor musicpersonalities,appearinadvertisingcampaignsinrelationtogoodsorservices.The appealforthepotentialconsumeristhatthepersonalityrepresentedendorsestheproductor serviceconcernedandisregardedasanexpert.Ofcourse,themoretheproductorservice advertisedislinkedwiththeactivityofthepersonality,themorethepotentialconsumerwill considerthatthesaidproductorserviceisendorsedandapprovedbythatpersonality (advertisingfortennisshoesorracketsbyatennischampion,advertisingforanenergydrink byacross-countryrunneroradvertisingforhigh-fidelityequipmentormusicalinstrumentsby apopstar).

(iii) ImageMerchandising Thisisthemostrecentformofmerchandising.Itinvolvestheuseoffictionalfilmor televisioncharacters,playedbyrealactors,inthemarketingandadvertisingofgoodsor services.Inthosecases,thepublicsometimesfindsitdifficulttodifferentiatetheactor(real person)fromtheroleheplays(characterportrayed).Sometimes,however,thereisa completeassociationandtherealpersonisreferredtoandknownbythenameofthe character.Thefollowingexamplescanbegiventoillustratethisnotion:fromthefilm industries,LaurelandHardy,theMarxBrothers,CrocodileDundee,JamesBond007played bySeanConneryandRogerMoore,FrankensteinsmonsterbyBorisKarloffandTarzanby JohnnyWeissmuller;fromtelevisionseries,ColumboplayedbyPeterFalk,thecharacterJ.R. inDallas,playedbyLarryHagman,orthecharacterMcGyverplayedbyRichardDean Anderson.Inthecaseofthelatter,aT-shirtbearingtheimageofR.D.Andersonwouldbe referredtoasaMcGyverT-shirt,whilepacksofdairyproductsreproducingtheimageof R.D.Anderson.wouldmentionthenameMcGyver,thepurchasingofsuchproductgivingthe possibilityofwinningsecondaryMcGyverproductssuchasT-shirtsortravelbags. Inthecaseofimagemerchandising,goodsorserviceswillbemarketedwiththe merchandisingofdistinctiveelementsofafilmorseries(appearanceanddressoftheactor whenplayingthecharactercoupledwithmemorableaspectsofascene(forexample, introductoryscenesoftheJamesBondfilms,theappearanceandweaponsofRamboorthe

WO/INF/108 page10 knifesceneinCrocodileDundee)).

III.

THELAWFULMERCHANDISINGOFACHARACTER

Twoofthemostimportantquestionstobestudiedrelatetotheownershipoftherights attachedtoacharacterandtotheconditionsunderwhichthemerchandisingoftheessential featuresofacharactercanberegardedaslawful.

(a)

TheRightsAttachedtoaCharacter

Therightsattachedtoafictionalcharactercangenerallybereferredtoasproperty rights,whichincludeeconomicandexploitationrights.Asisthecasewithmostproperty, thoserightsincludetherighttouseafictionalcharacter(ormorepreciselyhisname,image, appearance,etc.),therighttoreceivethebenefitsresultingfromitsuseandtherightto disposeofit. Withrespecttorealpersons,therightsattachedto,interalia,thename,imageor appearanceofarealpersonmaybereferredtoaspersonalityrightsorpublicityrights. Thoserightsincludetherighttousetheessentialpersonalityfeaturesandtoreceivethe benefitsresultingfromsuchuse.Furthermore,whereacertainformoflegalprotection(for example,trademarkprotection)isapplicabletosomeofthosefeatures,thesaidformmay, undercertainconditions,betransferred. Inprinciple,onlythepersonorlegalentitythatownstherightsinacharacterisentitled toexercisetherighttouseit,includingthesettingupofamerchandisingprogram.Iftheuser orthemerchandiserisnottheowneroftherights,hewillberegardedasalawfuluseror merchandiserifhehasrequestedandobtainedthepreliminaryauthorization(or,ifpossible, acquiredtherights)fromthesaidowner. Itisimportanttonotethattherightsattachedtoacharactermayenjoylegalprotection inanumberofformsavailableeitherautomatically,undercertainconditions(forexample, copyright,personalityorpublicityrights),orfollowinganactbeforeacompetentauthority (forexample,trademarkorindustrialdesignprotection).Thequestionsrelatingtolegalforms ofprotectionwillbedevelopedinPartIVofthisstudy.

(b)

OwnershipoftheRightsAttachedtoaCharacter

Therightsattachedtoacharacter(beingafictionalcharacterassuchorthefictional characterportrayedbyarealpersoninconnectionwithimagemerchandising)areinprinciple ownedbythecreatorofthatcharacter,unlessthecreatorhastransferredhisrights,was commissionedtocreate,createdinthecourseofhisprofessionalactivityforhisemployeror hasdied(seedevelopmentsbelow). Inthecaseofpersonalitymerchandising,therightsattachedtotherealperson concernedare,inprinciple,ownedbythesaidperson.

WO/INF/108 page11 (c) MeansofLawfulMerchandisingofaCharacter (i) FictionalCharacters

Thelawfulmerchandisingoftheessentialpersonalityfeatures(suchasthename, pseudonym,image,appearanceorsymbol)ofafictionalcharactermaybemadeinrespectof one,severalorallofthosefeatures,by: thecreatorhimselfasowneroftherights;

theholderoftherights(notbeingthecreator)pursuanttoacontract (transferagreement); theholderoftherights(notbeingthecreator)byoperationoflaw;

anauthorizeduser(notbeingholderoftherights)pursuanttoalicense agreement. Generally,thecreatorassuchofafictionalcharacter,whowilloftenbeanindividualor agroupofpersons,willnotsetupamerchandisingprogram.Thecreator(forexample,the authorofasuccessfulnovel)mayenvisage,inexchangeforalumpsum,transferringtoone orseveralpersonstherightsattachedtotheessentialpersonalityfeaturesofthecharacters portrayedinhiswork(rightofcinematographicadaptation,righttoreproducethenameor appearanceofacharacteroncertaingoods,etc.).Insomecases,thenewholderoftherights mayhavetomaketheprimaryuseofthecharacter(forexample,wheredrawingsare transferredtoafilmcompanyforthepurposeofamotionpicturecartoon)beforeenvisaging thesettingupofamerchandisingprogram.Theamountofthelumpsumwhichwillbe allocatedtothecreatorwilldependonseveralfactors,suchas: whetherthenewholderhasnolinkswith thecreatororwassetupandis controlledbythecreator; whetherthetransferisgeneralorlimitedinsomeways(withrespecttofieldsof activity,territorialscope,etc.); whetherthetransferincludestheassignmentoflegalformsofprotectionsuchas trademarksorindustrialdesigns; whethertheessentialpersonalityfeaturesofthecharacterenjoyed,atthetimeof thetransfer,areputationand,ifso,theextentofsuchreputation.

Itshouldbenotedthat,whereatransferincludestheassignmentofsomelegalformsof protection(forexample,trademarks),somespecificconditionsmayexistinsomecountries (seeAnnexI). Theremaybecaseswhereaperson,notbeingthecreatorofafictionalcharacter,holds eitherinwholeorinparttherightsattachedtoitwithouthavingacquiredthesaidrightsby contractbutratherbyoperationoflaw.Twoexamplescanbegiven,namely: where,followingthedeathofthecreator,theheirshaveinheritedtherights attachedtoafictionalcharacter; insomecases,wherethecreatorhadbeencommissionedorentrustedtocreatea fictionalcharacterorwherethecharacterwascreatedinthecourseofthenormal

WO/INF/108 page12 professionalactivitiesofthecreator. Inpractice,theholdersoftheri htsattachedtoafictionalcharacterwhohaveno g intentionofbeingdirectlyinvolvedinamerchandisingactivitywillnottransfertheirrights butwill,bywayoflicenseagreements,authorizetheuseofone,severaloralltheessential personalityfeaturesofafictionalcharacter.Theholderoftherightsmayeitherdirectly negotiatewithpotentiallicensees,orsub-licenseoneofitssubsidiarycompanieswhichwill negotiateorarrangeforamerchandisingagencytonegotiate. Theholderoftherightmayconcludeseverallicenseagreementswithdifferentlicensees accordingtothelattersactivities(forexample,alicenselimitedtothereproductionofthe nameandimageofacharacteronT-shirtsandanotherlicenseagreementlimitedtofoodstuffs and/orbeverages).Thelicensemaybeexclusiveornon-exclusiveinrespectofcertaingoods andwithinthesameterritory(onecountry). Itshouldfurtherbenotedthatmostoftheimportantlicensingagreementsinthecontext ofthemerchandisingalsoincludetherightforthelicenseetouseone,severalorallofthe essentialpersonalityfeaturesofthecharacterforpromotionalpurposes(suchastheuseof thelicenseescompanynameinassociationwiththenameorimageofthecharacters concerned). Amerchandisingagreementintheformofalicenseagreementwillgenerallycontain thefollowingprovisions: theindicationthatthelicenseisexclusiveornon-exclusive; thedefinitionofthesubjectmatteroftheagreement,includingthedescriptionof thefeatures(name,pseudonym,image,appearance,voice,etc.)relatingtothe characterwhichcanbemerchandisedbythelicensee; theindication,ifapplicable,thattheagreementincludesthelicensing,withinthe territorycoveredbyit,ofintellectualpropertyrightsrelatingtothecharacter (copyright,trademarksorindustrialdesigns); theindicationoftheproductsofthelicenseecoveredbytheagreement,andthe informationonwhethertheagreementextendstothemanufactureand/or distributionandsaleofthoseproductsandtothecorrespondingpackagingand advertisingmaterials; theindicationoftheperiodduringwhichtheagreementapplies,andthe informationonwhethertheagreementcanbeprolongedafterthatperiodor,on thecontrary,terminatedbeforethatperiodundercertainconditions(suchas failuretomanufactureand/ordistribute,defaultsinpaymentsand,ingeneral,any breachoftheconditionsoftheagreement),includingtheconsequencesofsuch earlytermination; theindicationoftheterritorialscopeoftheagreement; thefinancialtermsoftheagreement,suchasthepaymentofalumpsumorofa minimumguaranteesumplusroyaltiesatregularintervals,withanindicationof themeansofcalculationofthoseroyalties; theconditionsrelatingtothepriorapprovalthelicensorshouldgivethelicensee withrespecttothemannerinwhichthefeaturesofthecharacterareusedonorin connectionwiththeproducts(includingthepreliminaryfurnishingofsamples); theindicationthatthelicenseeshouldinformthelicensorofanyunauthorizeduse ofthecharacterbythirdpartieswithintheterritorycoveredbytheagreementand cooperatewiththelicensorinanyproceedingsinitiatedagainstsuchthirdparties;

WO/INF/108 page13 theindicationthatthelicenseemaynotgrantanysub-licensesor,onthecontrary, theconditionsunderwhichmanufacturingand/ordistributionsub-licensesmaybe grantedbythelicensee.

Merchandisingagreementsmaybelimitedtoatrademarklicenseagreementauthorizing thenon-exclusiveuseofthenameofafictionalcharacteronT-shirtsinonecountryormay covertheexclusiveuse(includingmanufactureanddistribution)ofalltheessentialfeaturesof severalfictionalcharactersforawiderangeofproductsandinalargenumberofcountries (suchasthelicenseagreementsconcludedbytheWaltDisneyCompany). Aswasmentionedinthecaseoftransfers,wherealicenseagreementincludesthe licensingofintellectualpropertyrights,someconditionsmaybeimposedbythelawsofsome countries(seeAnnexI).

(ii) RealPersons Themeansoflawfulmerchandisingofafictionalcharactermentionedinparagraph35 ofthepresentreportare,inprinciple,applicableinthecaseofpersonalitymerchandising(for example,wherethenameofafamousactoriswrittenonthelabelofaperfumebottleorhis imageappearsonthepackagingofdairyproduct,orwheretheimageofafamoussportsman appearsonadvertisementsforasoftdrink). Generallyarealpersonwillnothimselfexploittheessentialfeaturesofhispersonality (suchashisnameorimage)directly.Hewilleitherentrustanagentor,ifhewantsto participatemoreactively,setupacompany. Themainagreementswhichwillbenegotiatedwillbelicenseagreementsorproductor serviceendorsementagreements.AsshowninPartIVofthisreport,arealpersonismainly protectedagainstunauthorizedcommercialexploitationofhisnameorimagebypersonality orpublicityrightswhich,inprinciple,cannotbethesubjectofatransferbutonlyofan authorizationofuse.Thesamegenerallyappliesifthenameofarealpersonisregisteredasa trademark. Itshouldbementionedthatinnegotiatingagreementswithindividuals,suchasartists, particularcareshouldbetakeninmostcountries,evenwheretheindividualislegally represented(byanagent),toeliminatethepossibilityofanagreementbeingunenforceableby reasonofitsbeingenteredintoasaresultofundueinfluenceorduress.

IV. FORMSOFLEGALPROTECTION Apparently,nocountryhasenactedsuigenerislegislationontheprotectionofcharacter merchandising.Furthermore,thereexistsnointernationaltreatydealingspecificallywiththat topic.Therefore,anypersonorentitymustrelyondifferentformsofprotectionand, consequently,differentlegaltexts. Oneofthemostimportantareasoflawinvolvedinthelegalprotectionofcharacter merchandisingisintellectualpropertylaw.Alistofwhatconstitutesthevarioussubjectsof intellectualpropertywillbefoundinArticle2(viii)oftheConventionEstablishingtheWorld

WO/INF/108 page14 IntellectualPropertyOrganization(comprising150memberStates).Thisprovisionreadsas follows: Intellectualpropertyshallincludetherightsrelatingto: literary,artisticandscientificworks, performancesofperformingartists,phonograms,andbroadcasts, inventionsinallfieldsofhumanendeavor, scientificdiscoveries, industrialdesigns, trademarks,servicemarks,andcommercialnamesanddesignations, protectionagainstunfaircompetition,

andallotherrightsresultingfromintellectualactivityintheindustrial,scientific, literaryorartisticfields. Onlysomeoftheintellectualpropertyrightsmentionedabovearerelevanttosomeor alltypesofcharactermerchandising.Furthermore,otherformsofprotectionareapplicableto sometypesofcharactermerchandising. Basically,thelegislationoncopyright,trademarksandindustrialdesigns,togetherwith theprotectionagainstunfaircompetition(includingpassing-off),mayberelevantinthe contextofthemerchandisingoffictionalcharactersandofimagemerchandisingwhile,toa lesserextent,thelegislationontrademarksandindustrialdesignsandtheprotectionagainst unfaircompetitionmayberelevantinthecontextofpersonalitymerchandising. Furthermore,withrespecttopersonalitymerchandising,otherareasoflaw(suchas personalityorpublicityrights)mayberelevant.

A.

INTELLECTUALPROPERTYRIGHTS (a) Copyright (i) Introduction

Article2(1)oftheBerneConventionofSeptember9,1886,fortheProtectionof LiteraryandArtisticWorks(applicableto110memberStates)readsasfollows: Theexpressionliteraryandartisticworksshallincludeeveryproductioninthe literary,scientificandartisticdomain,whatevermaybethemodeorformofitsexpression, suchasbooks,pamphlets,andotherwritings;lectures,addresses,sermonsandotherworksof thesamenature;dramaticordramatico-musicalworks;choreographicworksand entertainmentsindumbshow;musicalcompositionswithorwithoutwords; cinematographicworkstowhichareassimilatedworksexpressedbyaprocessanalogousto cinematography;worksofdrawing,painting,architecture,sculpture,engravingand lithography;photographicworkstowhichareassimilatedworksexpressedbyaprocess analogoustophotography;worksofappliedart;illustrations,maps,plans,sketchesand three-dimensionalworksrelativetogeography,topography,architectureorscience.

WO/INF/108 page15 Generallyspeaking,itistheexpressionoftheauthorsideasthatisprotectedratherthan theideasthemselves.Ideas,assuch,arenotprotectedbycopyright.Apersonwhohasmade hisideapublic,forexampleinanoralpresentation,hasnomeansofpreventingothersfrom usingit.Butoncethatideahasbeenexpressedintangibleform,copyrightprotectionexists forthewords,drawings,photographs,etc.,inwhichitispresented. Aworkenjoyscopyrightprotectioniftheforminwhichitisexpressedconstitutesan originalcreationoftheauthor.Furthermore,somecountriesrequire,mainlyforreasonsof proof,somefixationoftheworkbeforeprotectioncanbeenforced.Finally,protectionis independentofthequalityortheaestheticvalueattachingtothework,andevenofthe purposeforwhichitisintended. Forthecreatorofaworkofauthorship,copyrightisbasicallytherighttorespectforhis creationandtherighttoderiveprofitfromhisworkbycollecting,foralimitedperiod,the revenuegeneratedbytheuseofhiscreativeeffort.Copyrightprotectiongenerallymeansthat certainusesofworksorcertainrelatedactsareunlawful,exceptwheretheauthoror copyrightownerhasauthorizedthem.Theseusesmay,forexample,includethecopyingor reproducing,inanymannerorform,ofanykindofworkandtheadaptationoftheworkto anothermediumofexpression.Anyunauthorizeduseofworksprotectedbycopyright,where authorizationisrequired,constitutesacopyrightinfringementandtheprejudicecausedmay beremedied. Therightsinaliteraryorartisticworkconsistofeconomicorexploitationrightsonthe onehandandofmoralrightsontheother.Themaineconomicrightsaretherightsof adaptation,reproductionorcommunicationofaworktothepublic,includingbroadcasting andpublicperformance.Thoserights,whichwillnecessarilybeexercisedinthecaseof merchandising,areusuallytransferredbytheauthoroftheworkor,inthecaseofawork madeforanemployer,generallybelongtothatemployer.Moralrights,onthecontrary,are non-assignableandinalienable.TheyarerecognizedinArticle6bis(l)oftheBerne Conventionastherightsoftheauthororcreatortoclaimauthorshipoftheworkandtoobject toanydistortion,mutilationorothermodificationof,orotherderogatoryactioninrelationto, thesaidwork,whichwouldbeprejudicialtohishonororreputation.Somecountriesprovide forawiderdefinitionofmoralrightsincluding,forexample,therighttodisclosetheworkor therighttodisavoworwithdrawit. Itisgenerallyacceptedthatthewholesetofprerogativesthatconstitutecopyrightmust berecognizedandprotectedatleastthroughoutthelifeoftheauthor.Afterhisdeath,his workcontinuesinprincipletobeprotectedforacertaintime.Thespecificcharacterof literaryandartisticproperty,whichstemsfromthevocationofintellectualcreation,led nationallegislatorstomoderatetheexclusivenatureoftherightstobeconferredonthe authorsdescendantsfortheexploitationofhiswork.UnderArticle7(1)oftheBerne Convention,theperiodofprotectionisgenerally50yearsafterthedeathoftheauthor.This isregardedasafairbalancebetweenthepreservationoftheeconomicrightsconferredonthe authorandsocietysneedforaccesstoculturalexpression,whoseessentialaspectswillhavea morelastingeffectthantransitorysuccesses. Uponexpiryofthetermofprotection,theworkfallsintothepublicdomain.Itisno longerprotectedbycopyrightandcanbeusedbyanyonewithoutauthorization.Itshould howeverbenotedthat,throughotherformsoflegalprotection(forexample,trademark protection),someworksmaycontinuetobeprotectedagainstunauthorizeduse.

WO/INF/108 page16 Inthecontextofthemerchandisingoffictionalcharactersandofimagemerchandising themostrelevantaspectsofcopyrightarebooks,pamphletsandotherwritings, cinematographicworks,worksofdrawingandphotographicworks.Asregardspersonality merchandising,therelevanceofcopyrightisprimarilyinthesphereofphotographicworks. Furthermore,thenotionofadaptationisveryimportant.Article2(3)oftheBerne Conventionreadsasfollows: Translations,adaptations,arrangementsofmusicandotheralterationsofaliteraryor artisticworkshallbeprotectedasoriginalworkswithoutprejudicetothecopyrightinthe originalwork. Themultiplicityofcommunicationmediaoffer,atthepresenttime,agreatnumberof possibilitiesforthecreationofadaptations(derivativeworks).Manyfilmadaptationsare probablymorewellknownthanthenovelorshortstoryonwhichtheywerebased(for example,thePinocchioandCinderellacartoonsbytheWaltDisneyStudiosareprobably betterknowntochildrenthantheoriginalstories,writtenbyCollodiandCharlesPerrault respectively).Somefamousartisticfigureshavebeenwidelymerchandisedoncetheyhave fallenintothepublicdomain.Forsomegoodsorservicesafictionalcharactermaybethe subjectofamonopoly(throughtrademarkprotection),butgenerallyitmaybeexploitedby anybody.Forexample,thefamousMonaLisa(LaGioconda)byLeonardodaVincihasbeen, andstillis,usedonvariousgoodsortheirpackaging(postcards,cardgames,dolls,alcoholic beverages,chocolateorfruitboxes,mineralwater,diaries);ithasalsobeenthesubjectof multipletransformations(cartoons,caricatures,fancyphotographs;etc.).

(ii)

Protectability

FictionalCharacters Inprinciple,copyrightprotectionisnotsubjecttoformalities,suchasthefilingofan application,asisthecaseforotherformsofindustrialproperty(industrialdesignsor trademarks)(seethedevelopmentsinAnnexI).Often,itiswhenthecreatorofthework decidestoexercisehisright,forexample,toprohibitwhatheconsiderstobeanunlawfuluse ofhiswork,thatthecourtswilldecidewhethertheworkconcernedisanoriginalcreation eligibleforcopyrightprotection. However,insomecountries,copyrightprotectionmaybedeniedorcurtailedwherea workiscreatedwiththeintentionofbeingexploitedindustriallyandembodiedinmass producedarticles,whichisaninherentqualityofworks(drawings,dolls,puppets,robots, etc.)designedformerchandising.Thisresultsfromtheoverlapbetweenthenotionsofartistic worksandindustrialdesigns,wherethetwoformsofprotectionaregenerallynotavailable cumulativelyatthesametime. Asregardsliteraryworks,themainquestioniswhetherthenameofafictionalcharacter (whichmayalsobethetitleofthework)canbeprotectedundercopyrightperse, independentlyoftheworkasawhole.Theanswerisgenerallynegative,althoughcopyright protectionmayberecognizedifthefictionalcharacterissufficientlyclearlydelineatedand hasacquiredsuchdistinctivenessandnotorietyastoberecognizedbythepublicseparately

WO/INF/108 page17 fromtheworkinwhichheappears(forexample,thecharacterTarzanintheworksof E.R. Burroughs). Drawingsorcartoons(two-dimensionalworks)maybeprotectedindependentlyifthey meetthesubstantiverequirementsofcopyrightprotection.Inthatrespect,itshouldbe emphasizedthataworkwhichisoriginalisnotnecessarilynew,sinceagraphicadaptationof analreadyexistingliterarycharacter(whetherornothehasfalleninthepublicdomain)may qualifyforcopyrightprotection(forexample,theliterarycharactersPinocchioorCinderella adaptedtothecartoonformbytheWaltDisneyCompany).Thesamewillapplytothe drawingofacommoncreature(forexample,thecartooncharacterDonaldDuck). Furthermore,itshouldbenotedthat,mainlyinthecaseofcartoonstripsandanimated cartoons,copyrightprotectseachdifferentoriginalposeadoptedbythecharacter. Three-dimensionalworks(mainlysculptures,dolls,puppetsorrobots),whichmaybe originalworksororiginaladaptationsoftwo-dimensionaloraudiovisualfictionalcharacters, willgenerallyenjoycopyrightprotectionindependentlyoftheworkinwhichtheyappearif theymeettherequiredcriteria. Audiovisualworksincludingfictionalcharacters(films,videogames,photographs,film framesorstills)will,asawhole(imageandsoundtrack),generallyenjoycopyrightprotection iftheymeettherequiredcriteria.Thiswillbeallthemoreprobablesinceaudiovisual fictionalcharacterswilloftenhavestartedlifeasdrawings(storyboardsorstripcartoons)or beendescribedinaliterarywork.Copyrightprotectionmayextendtotheindividualvisual attributesortothephysicalorpictorialappearances(costumes,disguisesormasks)ofa fictionalcharacter.

RealPersons Therelevanceofcopyrightprotectioninthecaseofpersonalitymerchandisingis limited,becausecopyrightdoesnotvestintherealpersonconcernedbutinthepersonwho createdtheworkinwhichtheessentialpersonalityfeaturesofarealpersonappear(for example,inthecaseofabiography,copyrightbelongstotheauthor;inthecaseofa sculpture,drawingorpaintingrepresentingarealperson,thecopyrightbelongstotheartist; inthecaseofafilmortelevisionseries,thecopyrightintheworkbelongstothepersonwho madeitpossiblefortheworktobemadeandwhosupervisedanddirectedtheworkofthe actors(authororfilmproducer)).However,inthelatterexample,asaperformer,anactorhas somerightsifthelawofthecountryofwhichheisanationalprovidesforperformersrights, orifthatcountryispartytotheRomeConventionofOctober26,1961,fortheProtectionof Performers,ProducersofPhonogramsandBroadcastingOrganizations. Thequestionisprobablymoredebatableinrespectofphotographicworks.Thereply willdependonwhoownsthecopyright.Inmostcasestheauthorofthephotographs(ormore accuratelyofthenegatives)willownthecopyright.Ifaphotographiscommissionedfor privateanddomesticpurposes,thecommissioningpartyhasusuallyarighttopreventthe makingofcopiesofthephotographoritsbeingshowninpublic.Afinalproblemrelatesto thecasewherethepartycommissioningtheworkisnotthepersonwhoisthesubjectofthe photograph.Inanycase,formsofprotectionotherthancopyrightareavailableforthecontrol ofthecommercialuseofphotographicworks.

WO/INF/108 page18 (b) IndustrialDesigns (i) Introduction

Industrialdesignsbelongtotheaestheticfield,butareatthesametimeintendedto serveaspatternsforthemanufactureofproductsofindustryorhandicraft.Anindustrial designcanbedefinedastheornamentaloraestheticaspectofausefularticle.The ornamentalaspectmayconsistoftheshapeand/orpatternand/orcolorofthearticle.The ornamentaloraestheticaspectmustappealtothesenseofsight.Thearticlemustbe reproduciblebyindustrialmeans,whichiswhythedesigniscalledindustrial.Ifthislatter elementismissing,thecreationwillrathercomeintothecategoryofaworkofart,the protectionofwhichisaffordedbycopyrightlawratherthanbyalawonindustrialdesigns. Inordertobeprotectable,anindustrialdesignmust,accordingtosomelaws,benew and,accordingtootherlaws,originalinthesensethatithasnotbeencopied.Industrial designsareusuallyprotectedagainstunauthorizedcopyingorimitationandtheprotection basedonregistrationlasts,inmostcountries,forfive,10or15years. Industrialdesignprotectionismainlyrelevantforcartooncharactersrepresentedinthe formofaestheticdesignsforthree-dimensionalarticleswhichmainlybelongtothetoyor costumejewelryareas(dolls,robots,puppets,actionfigures,brooches,pins)which generallyoriginateincartoons,butwhichmaysometimesrepresentrealpersons.The relevanceofdesignprotectionwillbeofimportancenotablywhencopyrightprotectionis excludedorreduced,mainlywhenacharacterhasbeencreatedwiththeintentionofbeing industriallyexploited.Furthermore,sincedesignprotectionisoftensubjecttoregistration,a designapplicationwillbehelpfultoestablishprimafacieevidenceofownershipasfromthe dateoftheapplication,althougheffectiveprotectionwillonlycommenceonthedateof registrationofthedesign.

(ii)

Protectability

Whilemanycountriesprovideforasystemofregistrationofindustrialdesigns,notall provideforthesubstantiveexaminationofhedesign(noveltyand/ororiginality);therefore, t thequestionwhetheraregistereddesigneffectivelymeetsthesubstantiverequirementswill bedecidedbythecourtswhentheholderoftheregistrationexerciseshisexclusiverightin ordertostoptheunauthorizedcopyingofthedesign.That,ofcourse,leavesanuncertaintyas totheeffectivevalueofaregistereddesignwhichcancauseproblemswhen,inthecaseofa character,itisintendedtohavethesaiddesignexploitedonalargescale.Potentiallicensees mayhesitatetonegotiateanagreementinrespectofadesigntheregistrationofwhichcanbe cancelledatanytimefollowingacourtactioninitiatedbytheownerofapreviousidenticalor similardesign. Inmostcountries,designswhichdonotcreateanaestheticimpressionbutwhichcan onlybedescribedaspurelytechnicalorfunctionalinnovationswillnotbeeligiblefor registrationasdesigns.Iftheyfulfilltherequiredconditions,theymayqualifyforutility modelsprotection,ifavailable,orforpatents.

WO/INF/108 page19 (c) TrademarksandServiceMarks(Marks) (i) Introduction

Since1945,theunprecedenteddevelopmentofinternationaltradehasledtoeven greateruseofmarksinallcountriesandinallfieldsofactivity.Althoughoneisnotalways awareofthefact,markstodayassumeaconstantlyincreasingplaceinday-to-daylife,since oneentersintocontactwithahostofmarks,notonlyinsupermarketsandpublicplaceswhere oneisfacedwithposters,butalsointhepress,onradioandontelevision,mediathatactually enterthehome. Amarkisasymbolwhichisintendedtoindicatewhoisresponsibleforthegoods placedbeforethepublic.Theremaybemanymakersorsellersofthesamegoods,andthey mayallusedifferentmarks.Marksenabletheconsumertochoosebetweengoodswithout actuallyknowingwhoholdsthemark.Theconsumerswilldistinguishbetweenthegoodsof competingtraderssolelybymeansoftheirmarks.Forthattobepossible,themarksshould notonlybedifferentfromeachother,butalsobeclearlyrecognizable.Inotherwords,marks shouldbedistinctive. Marksmaytakemanyforms.Theymayconsistofasingleletterornumeral,usually presentedinsomefancifulororiginalmanner.Attheotherextreme,awholesentence,or slogan,maybeusedasamark.Manymarksconsistofpictorialdevices,withoutanywords atall.Quiteafewmarksconsistofacombinationofwordsanddevices,perhapsonalabel attachedtothegoods.Somemarksaremadeanintegralpartofthegoods(forexample,the specialformofabottle,oraspecialmoldingaroundtheneckofabottle),whichmeansthat marksmaybethree-dimensional. Marksarenotlimitedtocoveringgoodsbutmayalsocoverservices,inwhichcasethey arereferredtoasservicemarks.Thelatterareused,forexample,byhotels,restaurants, airlines,touristagencies,carrentalagencies,laundriesandcleaners. Amarkservesseveralpurposes.Fromtheviewpointofthepersonwhoisinterestedin buyinggoodsorusingservices,itservesthepurposeofguidinghiminhisdecision.Sucha decisionisbasedontheexpectedpropertiesofthegoodsorservices.Inotherwords,oneof thefunctionsofamarkistoconveyafeelingofacertainquality.Asecondfunctionisto allowthemanufacturerofthegoodstoidentifythemoncetheyarenolongerinitsorhis possessionbutalreadyinthehandsofothers,suchasdistributors.Athirdfunctionofthe markistoenabletheauthoritiesresponsibleforcontrollingthequalityofthegoodssoldor theservicesrenderedunderit,aswellasanyotherentityorperson,toidentifytheholderof themark,sincemostcountrieskeeparegisterinwhichallregisteredmarksarerecorded. Lastly,itisoftensaidthatthemainfunctionofamarkistodistinguishthegoodsorservices ofoneentityfromthegoodsorservicesofanothersimilarkindofentity. Incomparisonwithotherintellectualpropertyrights,oneofthemainadvantagesof marksisthattheownerofamarkmayenjoyanexclusiverightforanunlimitedperiodof time. Itshouldalsobenotedthatthereisnorestrictiononthecumulationofrightsinrespect ofbothtrademarksandworkswhichmaybeprotectedbycopyright.Evenifacopyrighthas expired,theownersofcopyrightinawork(orholdersofaneconomicrightfollowinga

WO/INF/108 page20 transfer)can,formerchandisingpurposes,ensurethatseparateelementsofawork,suchasits title(whichmayatthesametimebethenameofafictionalcharacter)ortheappearanceor imageofcharacters(which,assuch,mayormaynotbeprotectedbycopyright),arethe subjectofanapplicationforgoodsand/orforservices.Asfortherelationsbetweenindustrial designsandtrademarks,theremaybepossiblelimitationsresultingfromthedoctrineof aestheticfunctionality. Traditionally,anapplicationtoregisteramarkwilleitherbedeclaratoryorattributiveof rights.Incountrieswhereanapplicationisdeclaratoryofrights,itmayservetoreinforcean alreadyexistingprotectionofthemarkbasedonitseffectivecommercialuse.Incountries whereanapplicationisattributiveofrightsandwhere,inprinciple,prioruseofamarkhasno effect,theapplicationservestoestablishtherightinthemark. Aslongasamarkfulfillsthevariousconditionsforregistration,mostoftheimportant essentialpersonalityfeaturesofafictionalcharacterorofarealpersoncanberegisteredasa mark.Forexample,thenameofafictionalcharacter(Snoopy,theGremlins,JamesBond, Tarzan)orthenameandsignatureofarealperson(CatherineDeneuve,ZinoDavidoff)orthe appearance,whetherintheformofadrawingorphotograph,ofafictionalcharacterorreal person. Itshouldfinallybeemphasizedthatamarkdoesnotprotecttherightsinthefictional characterorthepersonalityperse,butonlytheirembodimentinadistinctivemark,usuallyin relationtothegoodsorservicesforwhichthemarkisregistered.

(ii)

Protectability

Theessentialpersonalityfeaturesofafictionalcharactermay,undercertainconditions (mainlyofasubstantivenature)beregisteredasmarks.Asregardstheessentialpersonality featuresofarealperson,thequestionseemsmoredebatable,mainlywithrespecttotheimage (portrait).Inthecontextofmerchandising,thetrendhasbeentoadoptstagenamesand personalizedlogoswhichmaybemoreeasilyregistrable(forexample,inthepopmusicarea, suchstagenamesastheBeatlesandtheRollingStoneswiththeirrespectiveAppleand TongueandLiplogos).Anotherwayforarealpersontoprotecthisnameistoobtain registrationofthenicknamebywhichheisknown(forexample,intheUnitedStatesof America,thefamousfootballplayerElroyHirsch,knownasCrazyLegs). Incountrieswhererightsonlyresultfromregistration,themainimpedimenthoweveris thetimeneededtoobtainregistrationbecause,inthecontextofmerchandising,delaysshould beasshortaspossiblesincethepublicsrecognitionofmanycharacters(suchasE.T., Dick TracyorBatman)andtheirpopularityareoflimitedduration.However,therearesome exceptionssuchasthecartooncharactersofWaltDisneyortheliterarycharactersof Beatrix Potter. Someoftheconditionsofformtobemetbyamarkwhichisthesubjectofan applicationwillhaveanimportantimpactinthecontextofmerchandising.Oneofthose conditionswhichexistsinafewcountriesconcernstherelationwhichshouldexistbetween thegoodsorservicestowhichthemarkappliesandthebusinessoftheownerofthemark. Generally,neitheramerchandisingagencynorthecreatorofacharacterwillthemselvesbe engagedinthemanufactureormarketingofsecondaryproducts,anditwillthereforebe

WO/INF/108 page21 difficultforthemtoacquiretrademarkrightsinafictionalcharacterbecausetheywillnot themselvesbedealingwiththegoodsorservices.Furthermore,theactivitycarriedoutbya licenseewillnotbeconsideredasbusinessgeneratedbythelicensor,unlessthelatter becomesjointownerofthelicenseesbusiness. Themoderntrendismorefavorablehowever,sinceitismoreandmorewidely recognizedthatamarkcanbeappliedtoanunlimitednumberofgoodsorservices, independentlyofthetrueactivityoftheapplicantbutnotwithstandingtheprovisionswhich mayexistwithrespecttothenon-useofaregisteredmark. Inviewoftheaestheticfunctionalitydoctrine(mainlyinthetoyordollarea)orthe primarilyfunctionalexternalappearanceofgoods,three-dimensionalconfigurationsof goods(appliedforintheformoftwo-dimensionalgraphicrepresentations)areinprinciplenot acceptedforregistrationastrademarksinmanycountries,exceptwherethetrademarkhas acquiredsecondarymeaninginconnectionwiththegoods. Furtherconditionsareofasubstantivenature.Oneofthemainconditionsisthatamark shouldbedistinctive,inotherwords,neithergenericnordescriptiveinrespectofthegoodsor servicescovered.Furthermore,amarkshouldnotbemisleading(capableofdeceivingthe public)orcontrarytopublicorderormorality. Insomecountries,however,distinctivenessaloneisnotsufficientandthepersonality featuresofafictionalcharacterwillberegistrableasmarksonlyiftheyhaveacquireda secondarymeaning.Inothercountries,theacquisitionofasecondarymeaningcanremedy theinherentlackofdistinctivenessoftheessentialfeaturesofafictionalcharacter. Anumberofcountrieshaveamorefavorableapproach,andmostnamesand appearancesoffictionalcharactersareconsideredfancifulandthereforesufficiently distinctive. Asregardstheessentialfeaturesofarealperson,thelatter,orthepersonorentity entitledtoactinhisname,mayobtaintheregistrationofhisnameorappearanceasamarkin somecountries.However,whereasurname(whichcanalsobeatradename)isregisteredas amark,theexclusiverightoftheholdermaybelimited,sinceotherpersonsbearingthesame namemay,undercertainconditions,continuetousetheirnames,unlesstheregisteredmark concernsawell-knownpersonalityand/ortradenameandtheotherpersonsintendtotake advantageofthereputationoftheregisteredmarkbyparasiticmeans. Afurthersubstantiveconditionrelatestoexistingpriorrights.Theapplicablelawsdo notgenerallyprovideforanobligationonthepartoftheapplicanttocheckwhetherthemarks appliedforpossiblyconflictwithpriormarks,registeredorappliedfor,orotherunregistered priorrights. Thesafeguardingofholdersofconflictingpriorrightsisdealtwithinvariousways whichcanbecombined;attheapplicationstage,thecompetentauthoritymaycheckwhether themarkappliedforisidenticalorsimilar(inrespectofthegoodsorservicescovered)to priorregisteredrights(ingeneral,marks);oncetheapplicationhasbeenpublishedor registered,acertainperiodmaybeallowedduringwhichanypersonmayopposethe registrationofamarkonthebasisofpriorrights(registeredorunregistered);finally,oncea markhasbeenregistered,invalidationproceedingsmaybebroughtbeforeacompetentcourt.

WO/INF/108 page22 Mostlegislationwillcontainprovisionsrelatingtotheeffectiveuseofamark.Itmay sometimesbeprovidedthatanapplicantoraholdershould,bymeansofastatementor declaration,provetothecompetentauthoritythatthemarkisbeingused(excludingtokenor ornamentaluse)atthetimeoftheapplication(asaconditionforregistration),atregular intervalsafterregistrationandatthetimeofrenewal.Furthermore,mostcountriesprovide thatanypersonmayrequest,beforethecourt,thatagivenregisteredmarkshouldbetotallyor partiallyinvalidatedandremovedbecauseofnon-use.Invalidationofaregistrationwillonly bedeclarediftherehasbeennouseduringacertainperiod(generally,fiveyearsafterthe completionoftheregistrationprocedureorduringanuninterruptedperiodoffiveyears). Generally,thenon-useofthemarkwillnothavetobeprovedbythepersonwhorequested invalidationbutbytheholderoftheregistration.Furthermore,theholdermayestablishthat becauseofforcemajeure,hehasbeenunabletousethemark.Theuseshouldingeneralbe genuineandshouldnotmerelyconsistinpromotionaluseonancillarygoodsordecorative use.Finally,theusemadebyauthorizeduserssuchaslicenseesormerchandisersis consideredasuseofthemarkmadebyitsholder,aprovisionwhichismostrelevantto holdersengagedinmerchandisingprograms.

(d)

UnfairCompetition

Article10bisoftheParisConventionfortheProtectionofIndustrialProperty (applicableto127memberStates)readsasfollows: (a) ThecountriesoftheUnionareboundtoassuretonationalsofsuchcountries effectiveprotectionagainstunfaircompetition. (b) Anyactofcompetitioncontrarytohonestpracticesinindustrialorcommercial mattersconstitutesanactofunfaircompetition. (c) Thefollowinginparticularshallbeprohibited: (i) allactsofsuchanatureastocreateconfusionbyanymeanswhateverwith theestablishment,thegoods,ortheindustrialorcommercialactivities,ofa competitor; (ii) falseallegationsinthecourseoftradeofsuchanatureastodiscreditthe establishment,thegoods,ortheindustrialorcommercialactivities,ofa competitor; (iii) indicationsorallegationstheuseofwhichinthecourseoftradeisliableto misleadthepublicastothenature,themanufacturingprocess,thecharacteristics, thesuitabilityfortheirpurpose,orthequantity,ofthegoods. Atfirstglance,thereseemtobebasicdifferencesbetweentheprotectionofindustrial propertyrights,suchasregisteredindustrialdesigns,registeredmarks,etc.,ontheonehand, andprotectionagainstactsofunfaircompetitionontheother.Whereastitlesofindustrial propertysuchasmarksaregrantedonapplicationbyindustrialpropertyofficesandconfer exclusiverightsinrespectofthesubjectmatterconcerned,protectionagainstunfair competitionisbasednotonsuchtitlesbutontheconsiderationeitherstatedinlegislative provisionsorrecognizedasageneralprincipleoflawthatactscontrarytohonestbusiness

WO/INF/108 page23 practicesaretobeprohibited.Nevertheless,thelinkbetweenthetwokindsofprotectionis clearwhencertaincasesofunfaircompetitionareconsidered.Forexample,inmany countries,unauthorizeduseofamarkthathasnotbeenregisteredisillegalonthebasisof generalprincipleswhichbelongtothefieldofprotectionagainstunfaircompetition(in severalcommonlawcountriessuchunauthorizeduseiscalledpassing-off). Theaboveexampleshowsthatprotectionagainstunfaircompetitioneffectively supplementstheprotectionofindustrialpropertytitles,suchasregisteredindustrialdesigns andregisteredmarks,incaseswhereadesignorasignisnotprotectedbysuchatitle.There are,ofcourse,othercasesofunfaircompetition,suchasthefalseallegationsinthecourseof tradeofsuchanatureastodiscreditacompetitor,referredtoinArticle10bis(3)2oftheParis Convention,inwhichprotectionagainstunfaircompetitiondoesnotperformsucha supplementaryfunction.Thisisduetothefactthatthenotionofunfaircompetitioncoversa widevarietyofacts. Thelegalbasisfortherepressionofunfaircompetitioncanrangefromasuccinct generaltortprovisiontodetailedregulationinaspecialstatute.Insomecountrieswitha civil-lawtradition,whichfollowtheapproachconsistingintheprotectionofthehonest businessman,suchprotectionisusuallytobefoundinthegeneraltortprovisions.Inother countrieswithcommonlawtraditions,theactionforpassing-offdevelopedbythecourts(at leastoriginally)remainsthemainbasisfortheprotectionofcompetitors.Asforthe protectionofconsumers,anumberofcountrieshave,inaddition,enactedseparatesetsof lawsregulatingspecificcasesofundesirablemarketbehavior,suchasmisleadingadvertising, thoselawsbeingessentiallyindependentoftheprotectionofcompetitorsundercivilor commonlawprinciples.Severalcountrieshaveenactedspecialstatutesorspecificprovisions withinbroaderstatutes,dealingwiththeprotectionagainstunfaircompetition.Thesestatutes provideforcivilorcriminalsanctionsandcontainabroadgeneralprovision(oftenmodeled onArticle10bis(2)oftheParisConvention)whichissupplementedbydetailedprovisionson specificformsofunfairtradepractice.Althoughmanyofthesecountrieshavealsopassed additionallegislationconcerningactsrelatingtocertainproducts(food,drugs,etc.),themedia (television)ormarketingpractices(gifts,bonuses),thestatuteagainstunfaircompetition remainsthemainbasisforprotection.Oftenitsscopeismadeevenbroaderbythe assumptionthattheviolationofanyotherlawcanbeanunfairtradepracticebecauseitgives anundueadvantageincompetitionagainstthelaw-abidingcompetitor.Insomecountries, moreover,theconceptofaspeciallawoncompetitionhasevolvedtowardstheadoptionofa moregenerallawonmarketbehavior,orthelinkwithantitrustlawisstressedbythe enactmentofstatutesthatdealwiththeinstitutionofcompetitionitselfaswellaswith fairnessincompetition.

B.

OTHERFORMSOFPROTECTION

Manycountrieshaveenactedprovisions,eitherundergenerallaw(Constitution,Civil Code,etc.)orunderspecificstatutes,whichenablearealpersonassuchtobeprotected againsttheunauthorizedcommercialoradvertisinguseoftheessentialfeaturesofhisorher personality(name,pseudonymornickname,image,symbols,etc.)orarealrecognizable personportrayingacharacteragainsttheunauthorizedcommercialoradvertisinguseofthe essentialfeaturesofthecharacterportrayed.Thoserightswill,ingeneral,supplementthe protectionwhichmaybeavailablewithinthescopeofintellectualpropertyinitsbroadest sense(includingmarks,industrialdesigns,copyright,unfaircompetition).Suchprotection

WO/INF/108 page24 maybeachievedthroughthenotionsofdefamationorlibel,privacyrightsandpersonalityor publicityrights.

V. A.

SCOPEOFPROTECTION RIGHTSCONFERRED (a) Copyright

Itshouldfirstbenotedthatthedateofeffectivecommencementofprotectionwillnot resultfromanofficialdocumentasisthecaseinotherfieldsofintellectualproperty,butwill havetobeprovedbythepersonorentityinvokingcopyrightprotectionofawork.Generally, copyrightprotectionstartsonthedateofcreationofthework,theconceptofcreation meaningthattheworkshouldnotbeatthestageofamereideabutshouldbeexpressedina materialform(writings,drawings,etc.)or,inotherwords,shouldhavefoundsufficient expression. Afurthercharacteristicofcopyrightprotectionisthat,contrarytoindustrialproperty rightssuchasmarksorindustrialdesigns,aworkenjoyingcopyrightprotectionisprotected againstallunauthorizeduses,irrespectiveofthegoodsorservicescoveredbyeachuse. Generally,noonemay,withouttheauthorizationoftheownerofthecopyrightina work,exercisetheeconomicorexploitationrightsinthatworkorinrespectofaworkwhich issubstantiallysimilartothecopyrightedworkorwhichcontainstheessentialcharacteristics ofsuchawork.Themaineconomicrightsrelevanttothemerchandisingofcharactersarethe rightsofreproduction,adaptationandcommunicationtothepublic(includingbroadcasting andpublicperformance),inanymannerorform.Inthatrespect,protectionmayextendtothe useoftheworkinadifferentmediumorinadifferentdimensionortopromotionaluse. Eveniftheauthororcreatorofaworkprotectedbycopyrighthastransferredhis economicorexploitationrights,hewillalwaysbeentitledtoexercisehismoralrights,which arenon-assignableandinalienable.However,insomecountriesmoralrightscanbewaived bytheauthor,allowingactswhich,otherwise,wouldconstituteinfringement.Asregardsthe durationofprotectioninrespectofmoralrights,thelawsofsomecountriesprovidethatthey willnotbemaintainedafterthedeathoftheauthororcreator,whileotherlawsprovidethat theywillenjoythesamedurationofprotectionastheeconomicorexploitationrights,andstill otherlawsprovidethatthedurationofmoralrightsisunlimitedintime. Oneofthemostimportantmoralrightsrelatestorespectfortheintegrityofawork. Thecourtshaveoftenconsideredthat,inthecaseofadaptationofaworkorinthecaseof reproduction,thehonororreputationoftheauthororcreatorcouldbeprejudicedifthe originalworkweredistorted,mutilatedorotherwisemodifiedoraltered.Inthecaseof adaptation(forexample,fromanovelorshortstorytoamovieortelevisionseries),whilea certainfreedomshouldbeauthorized,theauthororcreatoroftheoriginalworkshouldbeable torecognizeinthescriptofthemovie or televisionseriesresultingfromtheadaptationthe essentialpersonalityfeaturesofthefictionalcharactershehascreated.However,whereno authorizationofadaptationhasbeengivenbytheoriginalcreator,therightofintegritymay notberecognizedinthecaseofparodiesorsatiresonawork(forexample,thecaseofa

WO/INF/108 page25 cartoonfilmentitledTarzoon,theShameoftheJungle).

(b)

IndustrialDesigns

Theeffectiveprotectionofanindustrialdesigngenerallystartsonitsregistrationdate. Furthermore,aregisteredindustrialdesignwillenjoyprotectionforalimitedperiodoftime (theaverageperiodbeing15years).Oncethatperiodhaselapsedtheindustrialdesignwill fallinthepublicdomainandmaybeusedbyanybodywithoutauthorization,unlesstheowner ofthedesigncan,forthesamearticle,availhimselfofalongerformof protection(copyright orregisteredmark). Aproductincorporatingadesignwillconstituteaninfringementifitisidenticalor similartoaproductincorporatingaregistereddesign.Thecourtsofmostcountrieswill examinewhetherinfringementexistsonthebasisoftheordinaryperson(averagepotential customer)testandofacomparisonoftheoverallappearanceoftheproductcoveredbythe registereddesignandoftheallegedinfringingproduct.

(c)

Marks

Theownerofaregisteredmarkwillbeentitledtopreventallthirdpartiesnothavinghis consentfromcarryingout,generallyinthecourseoftrade,anumberofacts(usinganother markoranothersign)whichareconsideredinfringementsoftheregisteredmark.Therightto preventunauthorizeduseofaregisteredmarkisdeterminedbythegoodsand/orservicesfor whichitisregistered(principleofspecificity).Insomecountries,theserightsofownership extendtomarkswhichareusedalthoughnotregistered. Thegeneralscopeofprotectionofaregisteredmark(whichisnotconsideredfamousor well-known)coverstheunauthorizeduseofasign(mark,tradenameorother)whichis identicalorsimilartotheregisteredtrademarkinrespectofidenticalorrelatedgoodsand/or services.Wheretheuseconcernsasignwhichisidenticaltotheregisteredmarkandcovers thesamegoodsorservices,thecourtswillconsiderthatinfringementexistswithout examiningwhetherthereisalikelihoodofconfusion,which,onthecontrary,willberelevant inthecaseofsimilarmarksforrelatedgoodsorservices.Extendedprotectionmaybe availableincasesofdilution,inparticular,whereamarkhasgainedahighreputation. Generally,inaninfringementcase,itisnotthedifferencesbetweentwotrademarksbut theirsimilaritieswhichhavetobetakenintoaccount.Moreover,itisconsideredthatthere maybeavisiblesimilarityoranaudiblesimilarityinthelanguageofthecountrywherethe markistobeprotected.Asregardssimilarityinrespectofthemeaning(intellectual similarity)possibilitiesofconfusionhavebeenrecognized(forexample,betweenanemblem representingajaguarandthenamejaguar,betweenthewordsCogitoergosumandthe marksCogitoandCogitumorthewordsTheseriouscowwitharepresentationofthe animalbeingseriousandthemarkThelaughingcowwiththerepresentationofalaughing cow).Finally,thestrengthordegreeofdistinctivenessoftheregisteredmarkwillalsobe takenintoaccount. Withrespecttothesimilarityofgoodsorservices,severalconceptsareapplied,suchas thenotionofequivalenceinthenatureandpurposeofthegoodsorservicesconcernedor

WO/INF/108 page26 thequestionwhethertheaverageconsumerwouldassumethesamesourceororiginforthe goodsorservices.Manycountriesrecognizethatthescopeofprotectioncoversgoodsor serviceswhicharenotlistedintheregistration,providedthattheyaresocloselyrelatedtothe listedgoodsorservicesthatconfusionmayarise.Intheapplicationofthisrule,many countriestakeintoaccounttheextentoftheuseoftheprotectedmarkandthesizeofthe enterpriseoftheownerorholderofthemark:thebiggertheenterpriseandthemore extensivetheuseofthemark,thelargerthescopeofprotectionasregardsthegoodsor services. Asregardstheconceptofuseofamark,useforcommercialpurposeswillmeanthatat leastthefollowingactswillbeprohibited:affixingthesigntothegoodsortothepackaging thereof;offeringthegoods,orputtingthemonthemarketorstockingthemforthose purposesunderthatsign,orofferingorsupplyingservicesthereunder;importingorexporting thegoodsunderthesignandusingthesignonbusinesspapers. However,limitationsorexceptionstothescopeofprotectionofaregisteredmarkmay exist.Threedifferenttypesoflimitationcanbementioned,namely,theuseofonesown nameandothernecessaryindications,theexhaustionoftrademarkrightsandthe consequencesoftolerance. Therearecaseswherethescopeofprotectionofaregisteredmarkmayextendto differentgoodsorservices,goingbeyondwhatisrequiredinArticle6bisoftheParis Conventionwhichisapplicabletoidenticalorsimilargoods.Theextendedprotectionis generallyrecognizedwhentheuseofasignonnon-similargoodsorservicescausesprejudice totheownerofthemarkortakesunfairadvantageofthereputationofthemark.Thepurpose istoaffordprotectiontomarkswhichhavereachedauniquedistinctivenessandreputation andthereforeadvertisingforceagainstthedilutionoftheircommercialmagnetismthrough theuseofidenticalorsimilarsignsormarksondissimilargoodsorservices.

B.

ENFORCEMENTOFRIGHTS;MEASURESANDREMEDIES (a) Introduction

Inthecontextofthemerchandisingoftheessentialpersonalityfeaturesoffictional charactersandrealpersons,anylegalformofprotectionwouldremainfutileifappropriate measuresfortheenforcementoftheprotectionwerenotavailable,notonlyfortheoriginal ownerofarightbutalso,inmostcases,fortheassigneeorlicenseewhoisactuallyengaged inthemerchandisingactivity.Merchandisingwouldnothavegrownsorapidlyinrecent decadesifnoeffectiveremedieshadbeenavailabletobartheunlawfulcirculationofgoods bearing,forexample,thereproductionofthemostfamouscartooncharactersofWaltDisney. Inmostcountriesthereexist,dependingontheformofprotectionandthelegaltradition ofeachcountry,civilsanctionssuchasmeasuresinvitingthepotentialinfringertorestrain frominfringingacts(injunctions)ormeasurespermittingtherecoveryofcompensationfor damages,criminalsanctionsandmeasuresallowingevidenceofunfairactstobeobtained (discoveries).

WO/INF/108 page27 (b) CivilSanctions (i) Injunctions

Inpractice,mainlyincommonlawcountries,themostimportantsanctionisinjunctive relief,whichcanbefinalbutfrequentlytakestheformofapreliminary(orinterlocutoryor interim)injunction.Thiscivilremedywillbeavailableirrespectiveoftheformoflegal protectionofthecharacter.

PreliminaryInjunction Thisformofremedy,whichwillbeavailabletoaplaintiffifhehasnotdelayed requestingitafterhavingdiscoveredaninfringingorunfairact,allowstheacttobestopped, althoughitmaynotbeeasyatthattimetoproveactualdamage.Generally,apreliminary injunctionrestrainingthedefendantfromimmediatelyperformingacertainactwillbegranted totheplaintiffifthecourtconsiders,withouthavingtoassessthemeritsofeachpartys respectivecase,thatthereisaseriousquestiontobetried.Theadvantageofapreliminary injunctionisthatitmaybesoughtforinfringingorunfairactsthatarelikelytobecommitted orcontinuedandthatitrequiresnoproofofeitherintentionorbadfaith.Themeritsofacase willbeexaminedinordertodecidewhetherapreliminaryinjunctionshouldbegrantedor whetherdamageswouldbeconsideredasconstitutingmoreappropriatecompensationifthe defendantiscapableofpayingthem(aninjunctionbeingrefusedwhereitisconsidered adequatetocompensatetheplaintiffthroughthepaymentofdamages). Inthecontextofmerchandising,thegrantofapreliminaryinjunctionwilleffectively determinethefinaloutcomeofacase,asthedefendantwillnotbeinterestedin recommencingtradingunderstyleshehashadtodiscontinueusingformanymonths.

FinalInjunction Acourtisfreetodecidetograntafinalinjunctionbut,generally,wheretheinfringing actisproved,itwillbegrantedunlessitisdecidedtoawarddamages.Furthermore,afinal injunctionmayberefusedifthedefendantcansatisfythecourtthatthereisnochanceofthe tortbeingrepeated.

(ii)

AccompanyingMeasures

Thosemeasuresmaybeavailablebothincountrieswhichgrantinjunctionsassuchand inthosewhichdonot.Inanycase,acourtorderprohibitingthecontinuationofaninfringing actmaybeaccompaniedbysomeorallofthefollowingmeasures:ifapplicable,anorderto cancelapplicationsorregistrationsinrespectofcopyright,industrialdesigns,marksortrade names;anordertoerasemisleadingorconfusingindicationsfromlabels,packaging, advertising,businessorpromotionpapers,etc.;anordertowithdrawtheinfringinggoods fromthemarketorstoprenderingtheinfringingservicesinthemarket;anordertodeliverup and/ordestroyunlawfulgoodsoradvertisingorpromotionalmaterial;anordertodisclosethe sourceofsupplyoralistofcustomers;insomecountries,anordertodestroythetoolsused tomanufacturetheinfringinggoods.

WO/INF/108 page28 Allthoseaccompanyingmeasuresareusuallylefttothecourtsdiscretion,sincethey havetobecommensuratewiththeextentoftheinfringingactineachgivencase.

(iii) Damages Compensationfordamages(inthesenseofdetrimentorinjury)isavailableinevery countryand,inthecontextofmerchandising,whetheritrelatestoafictionalcharacterora realperson. Ingeneral,themostcommonlyclaimeddamagesarelostprofitsandthedamagedone bydisordercausedontheplaintiffsmarket.Inthecaseoftheviolationofanintellectual propertyright(copyright,markorindustrialdesign)andindirectcasesofpassing-off, damagesshouldbeassessedtocompensatetheplaintiffforthedirectandnatural consequencesofeachinfringingsale.Afictitiouslicensefeemaybepaidbythedefendant, whichshouldbeequivalenttowhatalawfullicenseewouldpay. Inothercases,suchasthoseinvolvingsomeactsofunfaircompetitionortheviolation ofapersonalityright,damagesmayincludeasumforinjurytotheplaintiffsfeelingsor reputation.Itshouldhoweverbenotedthatinthecaseofanunfaircompetition(orpassing off)action,acommonrequirementdeterminingcompensationfordamagesisproofoffaultor intentoratleastnegligenceorrecklessnessonthepartofthedefendant. Asregardstheamountofthedamagesawardedbythecourts,thiswilllargelydepend onanumberofelementssuchasthereputationofthesignusedbytheplaintiff,thefactthat theinfringingactswereparticularlymaliciousorthenumberofinfringingsales.Ifthelatter isverygreatthecourtmayconsiderthatitcannotfixtheamountofthedamageswithouta preliminaryexpertopinion.Insomecountries,itcanbesaidthattheeffectivenessofthe remedieshasgrownconsiderablysincethecourtsarereadytoawardquitegenerousfinancial compensation.

(iv) RectificationandPublicationoftheCourtDecision Thesecivilremediesareavailableinmostcountriesattheexpenseofthedefendant(for example,correctiveadvertisingorpublicationofthedecisioninanumberofnewspapersand magazines).Theymaybeclaimedinadditiontorestraininginjunctionsand,inmost countries,independentlyofcompensationforactualdamages.

(c)

RighttoSue (i) InRespectofIntellectualPropertyRights

Generally,legalproceedingstopreventthefurtherviolationofarightrelatingtoa literaryorartisticwork,amarkoranindustrialdesignwillbeinstitutedbytheholderofthe right(whetherthatholderistheoriginalowneroftherightorholdstherightfollowing transferorassignment).

WO/INF/108 page29 Inthecaseofalicenseagreement,unlesstheagreementprovidesspecificallytothe contrary,anyactionrelatingtotheviolationoftherightwhichhasbeenthesubjectofthe licenseisinstitutedbytheholderoftherightwhilethelicenseeorlicenseesmayjointhe proceedingswithaviewtoobtainingremediesforhisortheirownprejudice(oftenbasedon unfaircompetition).However,insomecountries,licenseesmayinstituteinfringementactions intheirownname(forexample,iftheholderoftherightfailstodoso,notwithstandinga requestfromthelicensee).Furthermore,insomecountries,anexclusivelicenseewillonlybe abletoinstituteproceedingsortojoinanactioniftheagreementhasbeenproperlyrecorded bythecompetentauthorityintherelevantregistersothatthirdpartiesmaybeinformedofits existence.Inotherwords,onlyrecordaloftheagreementwillmakeitenforceable.

(ii)

UnfairCompetition(andPassing-Off)

Unfaircompetitionshouldalwaysbeconsidered,notwithstandinganyotherformof legalprotectionwhichmayexist.Protectionagainstunfaircompetitionservsnotonlythe e interestsofcompetitors,butalsothoseofconsumersandthepublicinterest.Itisthereforeof vitalimportancetotheeffectiveoperationofunfaircompetitionlawthattherighttosue shouldnotberestrictedtocompetitors,althoughtheymaybethemostpowerfulgroupto invokethelaw.However,notallmarketparticipantsneedanindividualrighttobringan actionbeforeacivilcourt.Asanyactofcompetitionhasadirectinfluenceonthemarket situationofindividualcompetitors,atleastthatgroupcannotreasonablybedeprivedoftheir fundamentalrighttosuetheunfaircompetitor.However,inmanycountries,direct competitiverelationsarenotnecessarytobeabletosueiftheindirectconsequencesofthe unfairactwouldseriouslyaffectthepositionofotherparticipants,forinstanceonparallelor subsidiarymarkets.Thusinmostcountriesmerelypotentialcompetitiverelationswill suffice.Furthermore,whereprotectionagainstunfaircompetitionismainlybasedontortlaw, everypersonwhoseinterestsarelikelytobeharmed,andthismayincludeindividual consumers,canusuallybringanaction.Inthosecountriesnotevenapotentialcompetitive relationshipisrequired.Recentlegislationalsogivesindividualconsumersarighttosue. Still,theriskofconsiderablecostsmayoftendeterthemfromexercisingthatright.Most individualconsumeractionsarethereforebroughtunderavailableself-regulatory proceedings,forwhichthestandingrules,costsandtermsarelessdaunting. Alongwiththegrowingtendencyduringthepasttwodecadestoconsiderconsumer interestspartofthegoalsofprotectionagainstunfaircompetition,recentlegislationinthis fieldhasprovidedconsumerorganizationswithaseparaterighttohaveunfairactsstopped. Forexample,underArticle10teroftheParisConventionthememberStatesmustprovide measurestopermitfederationsandassociationsrepresentinginterestedindustrialists, producersormerchantstotakeactioninthecourtswhenactsofunfaircompetitionare committed,insofarasthelawofthecountryinwhichprotectionissoughtallowssuch actions.Withtheinclusionofcertainareasofconsumerprotectioninunfaircompetitionlaw, itshouldalsobepossibleforconsumerorganizationstoclaimlegalremediesagainst violationsinthoseareas. Thereareseveralalternativewaysofintroducingtherighttoinitiatecivilactions.For example,topreventapossiblemisuseofsuchrights,somecountrieshaverestrictedtheright tobringacivilsuittoorganizationsthatcanclaimtheprotectionoftheirmembersagainst unfaircompetitionastheirstatutoryaim,orareofficiallyauthorizedasconsumer organizations.Althoughactualdamagetoindividualmembersisusuallynotrequired,most

WO/INF/108 page30 countrieshaverestrictedtheclaimsavailabletoconsumerorganizationstoaninjunction and/orrectificationintheareaofmisleadingadvertising.Onlyinexceptionalcasesmay organizationsclaimdamagesonbehalfoftheirmembers. Thepositionofotherorganizations,suchastradersinacertainbranchofindustryor professionalgroups,isfarlessuniform.Insomecountries,suchorganizationsmayhavea righttosueinsofarastheirstatutorypurposeisbeingseriouslyjeopardizedbytheunfairact concerned.Inothercountries,actualinjurytosomeofthemembersandthetransferoftheir rightstotheorganizationmightberequired,whereaselsewheresuchorganizationshaveno separaterighttosueatall.So-calledclassactions(actiopopularis)arenotpossibleinmany countries.Finally,civilcourtactionscanoccasionallybeinitiatedbyauthoritiesresponsible forthecontrolofcompetitiveacts,eitherassemi-publicorgovernmentalauthoritiesorby virtueofself-regulation.

(d)

MeasurestoSecureEvidence(Discovery) (i) DescriptiveandPhysicalSeizures

Thesemeasureswillbeavailableinanumberofcivil-lawcountries,especiallywhere thepersonrequestingtherighttoproceedwithanexparte seizureclaimsviolationofan intellectualpropertyright.Inthecaseofpersonalityrights,thejudgemayordertheseizureof itemstopreventortostoppublicationwhichinvadetheprivacyofanindividual. Thesemeasureswillbemostrelevanttomerchandiserssince,inpractice,theseizureof, forexample,T-shirtsunlawfullyreproducingWaltDisneycharacterswilltakeplaceonthe premisesofaretailshop,andtheretailerwilloftengiveinformationonthewholesalerofthe goodswhomhewillfrequentlycallinasguarantortobejointdefendantintheproceedings. Inmostinstances,atleastinthefieldofmarks,samplesoftheallegedinfringinggoodswill betaken.Physicalseizuresmaysometimesoccurwheretheallegedinfringingarticleisa magazineornewspaperabouttobepublished,whosetitleisidenticaltoamarkalreadyused forthesamegoods.

(ii)

AntonPillerOrder

InmostCommonwealthcountriestheequitableremedyofdiscoveryisofgreat importanceespeciallyintheformknownasanAntonPillerorder.Thisorderismade ex parte,thatis,withoutnoticetothedefendant,andpossiblyin camera.Thisenablesa plaintifftoseizetheevidenceofinfringementbeforethedefendanthashadanopportunityto disposeofit.Discoverycanalsobeused,whetherornotinconjunctionwithanAntonPiller order,tomakeapersoncurrentlyinpossessionofinfringinggoods,disclosehissupplier,or discloseinformationleadingtotheidentificationofthetortfeasor. TheAntonPillerorderasissuedbythecourtcanincludeprovisionsagainsttradingin certaingoods,preventthedestructionordisposalofgoods,requirethedefendanttoallowthe plaintiffslawyerandalimitednumberofotherpersonstoenterandsearchthebusiness premisesoreventheprivatehouseofthedefendant,causedocumentsorgoodstobe delivereduptothepersonsservingtheorderorthenamesandaddressesofthesuppliersof

WO/INF/108 page31 thegoodsinvolvedtobedisclosed,andpreventthedefendantfrominformingthirdpartiesof theexistenceoftheproceedings.Inordertoobtainthisrelief,theplaintiffmustshowthathe hasanextremelystrongcase,andthatthepotentialdamagesclaimislikelytobevery substantial.Further,clearevidenceofthedefendantspossessionoftheinfringinggoods mustbeproducedbeforethecourt,anditmustbeshownthatthereisarealpossibilityofthe goodsbeingdestroyedordisappearingbeforeacourtaction(withbothpartiesinvolved)can bebrought.Fulldisclosureofallfactsknowntotheplaintiffisrequired,andalsosecurityfor damagesthatmighthavetobepaidtothedefendant.Ontheotherhand,astheAntonPiller ordercaneasilybeabused,therearestrictrequirementsforitsissue.Forexample,thenature oftheordermustbeexplainedtothepersononwhomitisserved,itmustcontainonlythe minimumprovisionsnecessarytoachieveitspurpose,andadetailedreportofthematerial takenshouldbemadebythelawyersexecutingit. TheadvantageoftheAntonPillerorder,incomparisonwiththeseizuresexistingin civil-lawcountries,isthatitisavailableeveninthecaseofanunfaircompetitionorpassing offaction.Thedisadvantagehoweveristhattheplaintiffshouldhaveastrongcasetobeable toobtainthatrelief.

(e)

AcceleratedProceedings

Insomecountriesthereexistprocedureswherebyadisputebetweenpartiesmaybe expeditiouslyledtoadecision(suchasaprocedureforobtaininganinterlocutoryinjunction ortheactionenrfr).Ingeneral,thoseformsofprocedureareonlyappropriatewherethe factssupportingtheplaintiffscomplaintareveryclearandthereisaneedforanurgent decisionbecauseoflikelihoodofirreparabledamage.

(f)

CriminalSanctions

Inthecontextofmerchandisingandinadditiontocivilactionsandremedies,therealso existcriminalactionsandsanctions(usuallyfinesand/orimprisonment),whichinsome countrieswillbeavailablealongsidecivilremedies.However,criminalactionsandsanctions willbeimportantonlyincaseswherecopyright,trademarkorindustrialdesignprotectionis unavailable,forexample,wherepersonalitieswishtoenforcetheirpersonalityorpublicity rights.

VI.

GENERALCONCLUSION

Notwithstandingtheavailabilityandextentofexistingformsoflegalprotection,the practiceofmerchandisingtheessentialpersonalityfeatures(mainlythenameandtheimage) ofafictionalcharacterorofarealpersonhasrapidlyevolvedinsomecountriesfroma subordinateactivityintoanimportantindependentsourceofrevenueandeven,insomecases, intoacivilizingforceifoneconsidersitsimpactonthepublicatlarge(andmainlyonthe youngergenerations). Suchoverwhelmingdevelopmentandsuccessentailsacorrespondingdegreeofpiracy, infringementandunfairpractice.Inessence,itshouldbeconsideredthat,forwell-recognized

WO/INF/108 page32 fictionalcharactersorrealpersonsthatarethesubjectofimportantmerchandisingprograms andhavethereforegeneratedsubstantialgoodwill,thepossibleavenuesofreliefare reasonablyvaluable.Thesameisprobablynottrueoffictionalcharactersorrealpersonsthat havenotyetreachedpublicrecognition.

[AnnexIfollows]

WO/INF/108

ANNEX

InrelationtoAustralia,Canada,France,Germany,theUnitedKingdomandtheUnited StatesofAmericaontheonehandand,toalesserextent,Chile,India,JapanandNigeria,this annexfocusesonsomeaspectsofthelegalformsofprotectionwhichmayberelevantto charactersandreferstosomeimportantcourtdecisions.

Copyright 1. Recognitionofmoralrights(seereport,paragraph58)

Australia(recognitionofamoralrightintheformofarighttoobjecttofalse attribution),Canada,France,Germany,Japan,United Kingdom,United States of America (recognitionofmoralrightsunderthe1990VisualArtistsRightsAct(includingpaintings, drawingsandprints)).

2.

Consequenceoftheindustrialexploitationofawork(seereport,paragraph65)

IntheUnited Kingdom,underthe1988Act,theperiodofprotectionwillbereduced (from50yearsfromtheendofthecalendaryearinwhichtheauthordies)to25yearsfrom theendofthecalendaryearinwhichthearticlesembodyingtheindustriallyexploitedwork arefirstmarketed;however,articlesofaprimarilyliteraryorartisticcharactermaybe excluded. InCanada,nosuitmaybebroughtforcopyrightormoralrightinfringementwherea designinwhichcopyrightsubsistsisappliedtomorethan50usefularticles.Thisapplies onlytoarticlesinrelationtowhichthedesignisactuallyused.Ausefularticleisanarticle havingafunctionotherthanbeingamerevehicleforanartisticmaterial. InIndia,copyrightprotectiondoesnotapplytoanydesignregisteredundertheDesigns Act(1911)andthereisnocopyrightinanydesignwhichiscapableofbeingregistered,but hasnotinfactbeenregistered,thislatterrestrictionarisingonlywhenanarticletowhichthe designhasbeenappliedhasbeenreproducedmorethan50timesbyanindustrialprocess. Thenotionofdesignincludesthree-dimensionalfiguressuchasdolls. InJapan,althoughthecourtshavegrantedcopyrightprotectiontodesigns,sketchesor modelsdevisedforthepurposeofmass-producingpracticalgoods,ithassometimesbeen questionedwhetherthosedesigns,sketchesormodelsdonotfallwithintheDesignAct. InNigeria,copyrightprotectiondoesnotapplytoartisticworksif,atthetimetheywere made,theauthorintendedtousetheworkasamodelorpatterntobemultipliedbyan industrialprocess.Suchworksshouldbeprotectedunderindustrialdesignlaw. IntheUnited States of America,althoughinprincipleanycopyrightableworkisnot affectedbyitsprotectionunderotherlaws,inpractice,ifadesignpatentregistrationhadbeen obtainedinrespectofagivenarticle,thesamearticlewouldnotbethesubjectofacopyright

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page2

registration.However,theoppositesituationwillnotleadtothesamesolutionand,therefore, adesignregisteredundercopyrightcanbethesubjectofadesignregistration. InAustralia,undertheCopyrightAmendmentAct1989,figuressuchascartoon charactersusedastwo-dimensionalsurfacepatternsorornamentswillenjoyfullcopyright protection,whetherthearticlesareindustriallyexploitedornot.Theycanalsoberegistered asdesignstobenefitfromcumulativeprotection.Forworksofartisticcraftsmanshipsuchas toysordolls,industrialapplicationwillnotresultinthelossofcopyrightprotection,which howeverthearticleswillloseifthecorrespondingdesignisorhasbeenregistered. InGermanyandFrance,therearenorestrictionsoncumulationofcopyrightwith designrights.However,inGermany,foragivenarticle,theleveloforiginalityrequiredfor copyrightprotectionwillgenerallybehigherthanfordesignprotection.InFrance,inviewof theprincipleoftheunityofart,thepurposeoftheworkisirrelevantandtotalcumulationof protectionisavailable.

3.

Literaryworks(seereport,paragraph66)

InAustralia,Chile,India,Japan,NigeriaandtheUnited Kingdom,namesofcharacters cannotfulfilltherequirementsenablingaworktoqualifyasaliterarywork.However,in exceptionalcases,itispossiblethatthearrangementsoftheattributesanddescriptionofa character(includingthename)embodiedinanoriginalincidentmayconstituteaprotectable substantialpartoftheworkfeaturingthecharacter. InGermany,literarycharactersareprotectableundercopyrightlawindependentlyofthe literaryworkinwhichtheyappear,eveniftheyarenotsignificantinrelationtothework,to theextentthatthosecharactersrepresentindividualcreationsontheirown.However,this willonlyapplyinexceptionalcasesandwillusuallynotextendtothenameofthecharacter (evenifitisatthesametimethetitleofthework),sincethecreationofanameisnot consideredasufficientlycreativeeffortandlackstheminimumcontentofanexpressedidea orthoughtbeingdescriptiveofthecontentoftheworkandservingtoidentifyit(forexample, thecaseofSherlockHolmes). InCanadaandtheUnited States of America,copyrightinthecharacterassuch(whether ornotassociatedwithitsname)mayberecognizedifthecharacterissufficientlyclearly delineatedandhasacquireddistinctivenessandnotorietysoastoberecognizedbythepublic outsidetheworkinwhichitappears(forexample,thecharacterTarzanintheworkof E.R. Burroughs). InFrance,literarycharactersper searecopyrightableiftheypossesssufficient individuality,andifthecharacter(withouttheuseofhisname)canbeimmediately recognizedoutsideofthecontextoftheworkwhichsuppliedhimwithhisattributes.For example,thetitleofthenovelTheGodfatherwasnotconsideredoriginalenoughtobe protectedundercopyright.

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page3

4.

Two-dimensionalworks(seereport,paragraph67)

Inmostcountries,exceptinAustraliaandtheUnited Kingdom,drawingsmadefrom three-dimensionalcharacters(dollsortoys)willnotbeconsideredcopyrightableseparately.

5.

Three-dimensionalworks(seereport,paragraph68)

Theseareprotectableassuchiftheyfulfillthedifferentcriteriaoforiginalityand iftheyqualifyaspictorial,graphicorsculpturalworks(United States of America),works ofartisticcraftsmanship(AustraliaandtheUnited Kingdom),artisticworks,orusually worksofappliedart(FranceandGermany). Whilemostcountrieswillconsiderthatdollsbasedon,orslavishlycopiedfrom, preexistingdrawingsdonotenjoyseparatecopyright,afewcountries(Australiaandthe United Kingdom)specificallyprovidethatthemakingofathree-dimensionalcopyofatwo dimensionalworkofartconstitutesarestrictedactundercopyrightlaw.However, industriallyproducedtoysordollswouldhavetobeconsidered(intheUnited Kingdom)as artisticworksinordertoenjoyfullcopyrightprotection,intheabsenceofwhichsuch productswouldbeprotectableunderdesignlaw.

6.

Audiovisualworks(seereport,paragraph69)

InGermany,notonlythemotionpictureassuchbutalsotheindividualcharacters (MickeyMouse,DonaldDuck,Heidi)enjoycopyrightprotection,suchprotectionreferringto theirindividualappearanceasdesignedandshapedbytheauthor(Bambidecisionofthe SupremeCourt). IntheUnited States of America,undertheCopyrightAct1976,asamended,characters arenotmentionedassuch,butcaselawestablishesthatsomecharactersmaybeprotectedby copyrightindependently,totheextentthatthecharacterisoriginal,creativeandpossesses characteristicsthatareclearlydelineated.Thiswillbeeasiertodeterminewherethespecific featuresofacharacteraredescribedinvisualimagesratherthaninthecaseofliterary charactersonlydescribedinwriting. Withrespecttofilmframeswhichincludetheimageofacharacter,somecountries considerthattheyshouldbeprotectedasphotographs(United States of America),orthatthey shouldenjoyseparatecopyrightasacinematographicworkorasimagesformingpartofa filmwork(United Kingdom).Othercountries,suchasAustralia,consideronthecontrary thatstillsarenotcapableofconstitutingasubstantialpartofafilmworkandshouldbe excludedfromthedefinitionofphotographs.

7.

Registrationofcopyrightableworks

InAustralia,booksshouldbedepositedattheNationalLibraryandfailuretodoso resultsinthepaymentofafine.

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page4

InCanada,worksmayberegisteredandregistrationconstitutesprimafacieevidence. InChile,printedworksandpseudonymsshouldberegisteredandallotherworksmay beregistered. InFrance,printedworksmustbedeposited(butnotregistered)andallactsrelatingto theproduction,distributionandexploitationofaudiovisualworksmustberegistered (includingthetitleofacinematographicfilm);thedepositofthefilmstitleisnotacondition forobtainingorenjoyingcopyrightinthefilm. In Germany,truenamesofauthorsmayberegisteredandregistrationaffectsthe durationofcopyright. InIndia,names ortitlesofworksandcinematographicworksmayberegistered,and registrationconstitutesprimafacieevidence. InJapan,thetruenameofanauthorofananonymousorpseudonymousworkmaybe registeredandthelegaleffectofsuchregistrationisthatthepersonwhosetruenameis registeredispresumedtobetheauthoroftheworkconcerned. IntheUnited States of America,worksandamplificationsofworksmayberegistered; thecertificate,whichisissuedifitisconsideredthatthematerialdepositedconstitutes copyrightablesubjectmatterandthatalllegalrequirementshavebeenmet,constitutes rima p facieevidenceofthevalidityofthecopyrightifitismadewithinfiveyearsafterfirst publication. Infringementofmoralrights(caselawinFrance:theAristocatscase2)

8.

ThiscaseinvolvedtwoAmericancitizens(ThomasRoweandTomMcGowan),the FrenchcompanyHachetteandWaltDisneyProductionsFrance(Frenchsubsidiaryof Walt DisneyProductionsBurbank).Inthe1960s,RoweandMcGowanconceivedtheideaof afilmwithrealcatsandgaveitthetitleofTheAristocats.ThestorywaswrittenbyRowe, andMcGowanactedasanintermediarytoselltheprojecttoWaltDisneyProductions Burbank,whichfinallyabandonedtheproject.Afewyearslater,Rowe(whohadbecomea Frenchcitizen)learnedthatWaltDisneyProductionsBurbankwasabouttopreparean animatedcartoonbasedonthecharactershehadconceivedandentitledTheAristocats.He suedbeforetheFrenchcourtsthedistributorofthefilminFrance(WaltDisneyProductions France),thecompanywhohadacquiredthepublishingrightsofthefilminFrance(Hachette) andMcGowan.Hebasedhisactiononusurpationofhisrightofauthorshipintheworkand onviolationofhismoralrightsanddemandedsignificantdamages.Thecourt,afterhaving carefullyanalyzedthesimilarities(inrespectoftheworkasawholeandinrespectofthe charactersdepicted)betweenthecartoonfilmbyWaltDisneyandthevariousscripts, consideredthatRowesrightofauthorshiphadnotbeencompletelyrespectedintheliterary workTheAristocatshehadconceived,andhewasawardeddamages(FF250.000).

TribunaldegrandeinstancedeParis,3eChambre,February12,1982,inDroitsetMdia.

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page5

9.

Infringementofeconomicrights

Incountries(suchasAustralia,theUnited KingdomandtheUnited Statesof America) wheretheessentialattributesofmanyliterarycharactersandofsomeartisticoraudiovisual charactersarenotprotectedpersebycopyrightindependentlyoftheworkinwhichthey appear,thedeterminationofinfringementwilldependonadetailedcomparisonbetweenthe worksinvolvedinaconflict,including,amongothers,thequestionofthepossiblesubstantive similarityofthecharactersdepictedinthetwoworks.Itcanthereforebesaidthatthe individualpictorialrepresentationofpurelyliterarycharacterswillinveryfewcasesinfringe thecopyrightinaliterarywork. InFrance,eveniftheattributesofaliterary,artisticoraudiovisualcharacterarenot systematicallyprotectedassuch,thecharacterhasamajorinfluenceindeterminingwhether theworkfeaturingthecharacterisinfringed.Thecopyingofafewscenesfromafilmmaybe consideredasconstitutinginfringementofacinematographicwork.Copyrightprotection extendsalsotoanoriginaltitle,whichmayalsobethenameofacharacter.Itsreproduction inmediasuchasmagazinescanbeprohibited. Notwithstandingthedifferenceinthelevelofprotectionasregardsthecharactersas such,theunauthorizedadaptation(tothenovelform,orserializationinbooksormagazines) ofaprotectedwork(oftenthescriptofafilmorofatelevisionprogram)willgenerally constituteaninfringementoftheoriginalworkifthesituationsandcharactersofthescriptcan easilyberecognizedintheadaptedwork.Furthermore,theuseofstillsorframesshowinga characterfromafilmortelevisionseriesinothermedia(suchasposters,postcards,calendars, badges,stickers,postcards,etc.)isconsideredaninfringementofthecopyrightinthe cinematographicfilmorinthephotograph. Withrespecttotheuseofthecharacterinanotherdimension(forexample,character originallycreatedintwodimensions(drawing)usedinthreedimensions(doll,keyring,toys, etc.)andviceversa)),mostcountriesconsiderthattheuseconstitutesaninfringement.In somecountriesthisquestionisdealtwithinamoregeneralprovisionaccordingtowhich unauthorizedcopyinginadifferentform(Japan)or,inanyformrecognizablyderivedfrom thatoftheoriginalwork(Nigeria),isprohibited.Inanothercountry(India),thelawdoesnot provideforsuchanextensionofprotection.Itishoweverprovidedthatthecopyrightina workisnotinfringedbythemakingofanobjectofanydescriptioninthreedimensionsifthe objectwouldnotappeartopersonswhoarenotexpertsinrelationtoobjectsofthat descriptiontobeareproductionoftheartisticwork.Acontrario,ifthepubliccanrecognize thecharactersdepictedinaworkpresentedinanotherform,thereisinfringement. Thepromotionaluseofaprotectedcharacterconcernsmainlyitsuseasatrademark,a decorativeuseoritsuseinadvertising.Inmostcountriesthoseformsofusewillconstitutean infringementofthecopyright(forexample,theuseonT-shirtsofarepresentationofthe eponymoussharkinfringesthecinematographiccopyrightinthefilmJaws).Furthermore, insomecountries(suchasFrance),themereuseofthenameofacharacterfortrademark purposeshasalsobeenconsideredascopyrightinfringement,eitherfollowingfromthe assumptionthatthenamecanbeconsideredasatitleoraspartoftheauthorsmoralrights (forexample,aTarzantrademarkregistrationwascancelled).Onthecontrary,ifthetitleof anovel(whichisatthesametimethepseudonymofthemaincharacterofthestory)isnot consideredoriginalenoughtoenjoycopyrightprotection,itcanbefreelyadoptedasa trademark(forexample,thetitleTheGodfather).

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page6

Thecaseofadvertisingusecanbeillustratedbythefollowingexample,takenfrom Frenchcaselaw:asupermarkethadstartedanadvertisingcampaignusingaphotograph representingamanandwoman,scantilydressed,andamonkey,doingtheirshopping.The heirsofE.R.Burroughssuedthesupermarketwhoarguedthattheirliterarycopyrightcould notextendtothevisualrepresentationoftheTarzancharacters(Tarzan,JaneandCheetah). Thecourtconsideredthatsuchaphotographshouldhavereceivedthepriorauthorizationof theownersofthecopyrightintheliteraryworkTarzan,theLordoftheJungle.

IndustrialDesigns 1. Substantiveconditionstotheregistrationofindustrialdesigns

Insomelaws,whiletheconditionofnoveltyisalwaysmentioned,aconditionother thanoriginalitymaybeindicated,suchasdistinguishablefromotherindustrialmodels (Chile),visibletothenakedeye(Japan)ornotcontrarytopublicorderormorality (Nigeria). Somecountries(forexample,Canada,GermanyandtheUnited States of America) requirethatthedesignappliedforshouldbenewandoriginal. Firstly,inthecaseofGermany,forthenoveltyrequirement,thecharacteristicelements ofadesignmaynotbeknownoreasilyaccessiblebydomesticexpertsinaspecificdesign field.Thoseelementsmaybeascertainablefromothergoodsofthatspecificoranadjoining designfield.Itshouldbeemphasizedthat,inmerchandisingpractice,mostdesign applicationsaremadefordollsandtoys,butalsoforcartoon-likecharactersonstationery goodsandastextileadornements.Onemaywonderwhetherthosetwofieldsareadjoining. Asregardstheoriginalityrequirement,itissatisfiedbycreationsgoingbeyondtheordinary skillofadesignerwithsomeknowledgeintheparticulardesignfield. IntheUnited States of America,underthepresentsystemofdesignpatentprotection, onemajorproblemoftherequirementsofnoveltyandoriginalityisthefactthattheyare equatedwiththehighstandardsapplicabletoutilitypatents,namelynoveltyand,mainly,non obviousness.However,since1981,inthecaseofadesignpatent,thenotionofordinary observerhasbeenreplacedbyordinarydesignerskilledintheparticulardesignfield. InCanada,theconceptsofnoveltyandoriginalityshouldbeinterpretedinthesense that,first,adesignappliedformustnotresembleanyotherdesignalreadyregisteredand, second,thedesignmustbeoriginalinfact,andnotmerelyasappliedtoaparticulararticle, whereithaspreviouslybeenappliedtoananalogousarticle. Othercountries(suchasAustraliaandtheUnited Kingdom)requirethatthedesign appliedforshouldbenewororiginal. IntheUnited Kingdom,noveltyisprecludedbypriorregistrationorpublicationwithin thecountryofthesamedesignoradesigndifferingonlyinimmaterialdetailsorin featureswhicharevariantscommonlyusedinthetradeinconnectionwiththesamearticle oranyotherarticle(evenofadifferentkind).Thus,adesignbasedonawell-known characterwillonlybenewaslongasitisnotyetappliedwithintheUnitedKingdomtoany

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page7

articleofmanufacture.Theownerofapreviousdesignregistration,however,mayextendhis registrationtootherarticlesand/orforimmateriallymodifieddesigns. InAustralia,adesigndoesnotsatisfythenoveltyrequirementiftherehasbeen registration,publicationoruseinAustraliaofasimilardesignappliedtothesameproduct,or anobviousadaptationofthedesignappliedtoanyotherproduct.Asregardsidenticaldesigns exploitedoutsideAustralia,theywillprecludenoveltyforregistrationinthatcountry. Finally,withrespecttodesignapplicationsfortoysordollsbasedoncartoonoraudiovisual characters,previoususeinmagazinesdoesnotqualifyasrelevantpublicationprecluding noveltyaslongasthedesignwasnotappliedindustriallybeforetheapplicationwasfiled.

2.

Durationofprotection

Themaximumperiodsofprotectionareasfollows:Australia(forapplicationsfiled beforeApril1,1982)15yearsand(thereafter)16years;Canada,10years;France,50years; Germany,20years;UnitedKingdom(forregistereddesignsfiledbeforeAugust1,1989) 15 yearsand(thereafter)25years;forunregistereddesigns(underaspecialsystemof protection),15years(or10yearsfromdateofsaleofanarticleincorporatingthedesign anywhereintheworld);United States of America,14years;Chile,10years;India, 15 years;Japan,15years;Nigeria,15years.

3.

Relevanceofprotectionforcharacters

Incountrieswhereaneffectiveexaminationastonoveltyiscarriedout,thepointsof noveltyoftheregistereddesignareexplicitlytakenintoaccount(United States of America) andthestatementofnoveltybywhichthedesignapplicationmustbeaccompaniedhasa majorimpactonthescopeofprotection(United Kingdom).Onthecontrary,incountries wherenoofficialsubstantiveexaminationiscarriedout,theallegedinfringerwill,inmany cases,arguebeforethecourtonthenoveltyororiginalityoftheregistereddesign. Insomecountries,thescopeofprotectionofaregistereddesigncanqualifyasnarrow sincetheinfringingdesign,incomparisonwiththeregistereddesign,mustbesubstantially thesameandtheproductscoveredmustbeofthesamekind(intheUnited States of America),ormustnotbesubstantiallydifferent(intheUnited Kingdom).Australiaprovides forabroaderscopeofprotection,asaregistereddesignwillnotonlybeinfringedbyobvious imitations,butwillalsobeinfringedbyfraudulentimitationswhichhaveapparentand substantialdifferenceswhichhavebeenmademerelytodisguisethecopying.Itshouldbe noted,however,thatinAustralia,theinfringingdesignmustbeappliedtothesameproductas theregistereddesign. Othercountries(suchasFranceandGermany)provideforabroaderscopeofprotection sincethatprotectionnotonlyextendstoidenticalorsimilardesigns,butthekindsofproduct towhichthedesignrelatesareirrelevant.However,itisdoubtfulwhetherthecourtswould considerthatthereisinfringementwhereadesignisincorporatedinaproductwhichistotally differentfromtheregistereddesign. Insomecountries(forexample,Japan),theuseofaregistereddesignmayberestricted, forexample,whenitconflictswithcopyrightofanotherperson.Thisresultsfromthefact

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page8

thatapersonmayregisteradesign(forexample,alamp,apuppetoratoy)incorporating charactersinwhichhehasnoindependentrights(suchascopyright).

Trademarks 1. Relationbetweencopyrightandtrademarkprotection(caselaw) Firstcase3 In1894,theauthorJulesRenardassignedtothepublisherFlammarionhispublication rightsinanovelentitledPoildeCarotte(whichisalsothenicknameofthemaincharacter ofthebook).Manyyearsafterthedeathoftheauthor,hisheirassignedtoacompanythe righttousethenamePoildeCarotteasatrademarktodesignateacheese.Amongthe variousargumentsofFlammarionbeforetheCourt,thepublisherclaimedcopyrightinthe titleofthework.TheCourtconsideredthatthepublisherhadacquirednorightsinthe reproductionofthetitleoftheworkforuseapartfromthebookitself,and,inparticular,for useasatrademark,ashopsignoratradename. Secondcase4 ThatcaserelatedtothefamoustaleforchildrenentitledPinocchiocreatedbyCollodi (CarloLorenzini).In1940,WaltDisneyadaptedtheworkofCollodiandreleasedacartoon movie.Thecompanyenjoyedseparatecopyrightinthecharactersoriginallyadapted (Pinocchio,Gepetto,JiminyCricket)andreinforceditsprotectionbyobtaining,atleastin France,trademarkregistrationsforthenamesandimagesofthosecharacters,covering,inter alia,goodsinClass16(magazines).In1980,WaltDisneyissuedinFranceamagazine entitle PinocchioMagazineanddiscoveredthatapublishingcompanywaspublishing d magazinesentitledPinocchioMagazineandPinocchioPochewhichcontained,interalia, reproductionofthePinocchiocharactersadaptedbyWaltDisney.BeforetheCourt,the publishingcompanyclaimedthatthetrademarkregistrationsofWaltDisneywerevoid becausethecopyrightofCollodihadfallenintothepublicdomain.TheCourtrepliedthat anybodycouldreproducetheliteraryworkofCollodiforrepublicationorevenforan adaptation,butthattheadaptationshouldfollowtheessentialandcharacteristicfeaturesofthe originalworkandnotthoseresultingfromthecartoonadaptationmadebyWaltDisney. Furthermore,theworkofCollodibeinginthepublicdomain,ithadbecomearesnullius whichcouldbeappropriated,asregardsthenamesofthecharacters,astrademarksby Walt Disney.

CourtofAppealofParis,4eChambre,November23,1977inAnnalesdelaProprit Industrielle,1979,page68. TribunaldegrandeinstancedeLyon,March23,1981.

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page9

2.

Traffickinginmarks

IntheUnited Kingdom,theTradeMarksAct1938providedthat,inthecasewherethe applicantdoesnotintendtousethetrademarkbutintendsinsteadthatitshouldbeexploited bylicensing,theapplicationshouldbeaccompaniedbyanapplicationtoregisterthelicensee asauserofthemark.In1984however,theHouseofLordsdecided(thoughwithsome reluctance)thatsuchapplicationstoregisterthecartooncharacterHollyHobbiein 12 classesshouldberefused,underaprovisionoftheActwhichprohibitedtheregistrationof auserwherethiscouldtendtofacilitatetraffickinginthemark.TheTradeMarksAct1994 containsnoprovisionsagainsttrafficking,nordoesitrequireanapplicanttoindicatewhether themarkwillbeusedbyhimorbyalicensee. InothercountrieswhoselawfollowstheUnitedKingdom1938Act,thenotionof traffickingissometimesunderstoodinalessstrictandnarrowsense.Forexample,inIndia,a trademarkmayberegistered,evenwhenitisclearthattheownerofthetrademarkonce registeredhasnointentiontouseitinIndia.Thisbroadinterpretationofthestatutory provisionontraffickingbytheCourtsintheAmericanProductsdecisionof1986has clearlyopenedthepossibilityfortheprotectionofmerchandisinginIndiabutdoesnotdo awaywithallformsoftrafficking.Atthedateofapplication,theapplicantshouldhavein mindsomespecificpersonwhomheintendstoauthorizeasaregistereduser.Anapplication cannotbefiledbasedonspeculationthatitshouldbepossibletofindalicensee,butthere shouldatleasthavebeensomeclearthinkingonthesettingupoflicenseactivity. Onthecontrary,somecountriessuchasNigeriastrictlyinterprettheirprovisionsonuse orintenttouseatrademark.Atrademarkappliedforshouldbefiledwiththeintentiontouse itandtheuseorproposeduseshouldbebytheowner,andatrademarkregisteredwithoutany realbonafide intentioncanbeexpungedattherequestofanyperson.Inconsequence,the applicationwillbefiledforalimitedlistofgoodswhichlessensitsinterestinthecontextof merchandising. InacountrysuchasCanada,theseekingofawiderangeofregistrationsforthesame trademarkinrespectofvariousgoodsorservicesbeingregardedastraffickingorasan evidenceofalackofbonafideintentiontousethetrademarksisnotconsideredinthe trademarklaw.However,thatcountryprovidesinitslawthattheapplicantshouldfile,in thecaseofaproposedtrademark,astatementthattheapplicantbyitselforthroughalicensee, orbyitselfandthroughalicensee,intendstousethetrademarkinCanada. IntheUnited States of America,thereisnorequirementofhavingabusinesscovering thegoodsorservicesappliedforand,inthecontextofmerchandising,licensingoftrademarks iswellestablished,althoughusebylicenseesofatrademarkinurestothebenefitofthe licensorunlessitcanbeshownthatthelicensorexercisesno,orinsufficient,controloverthe natureandqualityofthegoodssoldorservicesrenderedbyusingthemarkbythelicensee. SincethelatestamendmentoftheLanhamActin1988,anapplicationintheUnitedStatesof Americashouldeitherbebasedonactualuseincommerce(whichdoesnotincludemere tokenuse)oronabonafideintentiontousethetrademarkinrespectofthegoodsorservices appliedfor.Inthelattercase,thetrademarkwillnotberegistereduntilitiseffectivelyused intheUnitedStatesofAmerica(unlesstheapplicationwasfiledbaseduponaregistrationina ParisConventionmembercountry,orinacountrygrantingreciprocalrightstoapplicants fromtheUnitedStatesofAmerica,forthesametrademarkandsamegoodsorservices).To preventtraffickingintrademarks,themarkforwhichanapplicationwithadeclarationof

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page10

intentiontousewasfiledcannotbeassignedpriortothefilingoftherequiredstatementof use,unlesstheassignmentoftheapplicationispartofanassignmentofthebusinesstowhich themarkpertains. InFrance,atthetimeoftheapplicationorduringtheregistrationprocedure,no requirementsexisteitherinrespectofacorrelationbetweenanapplicantsbusinessandthe goodsorservicesappliedfororindeedinrespectofhavingabusinessatall,withthe consequencethatrealpersonswithoutanycommercialactivitymayregistertrademarksand grantlicenseagreements.Furthermore,therearenolimitationsastothegoodsorservices whichmaybeappliedfor.Onecanfileanapplicationandobtainaregistrationforthe 42 classesofgoodsandservicesoftheInternationalClassification.

3.

Effectiveprotection

Inthecontextofmerchandising,therecognitionbythecourtsandinthelawsofmost countriesoftheconceptoflikelihoodofconfusionorassociationastosponsorshipismost relevant. Thoseconceptshave,forexample,beenrecognizedbytheEuropean Communitiesin theFirstCouncilDirectiveof1988toApproximatetheLawsoftheMemberStatesRelating toTradeMarksandtheCouncilRegulation(EC)ofDecember20,1993,ontheCommunity trademark.Article5(1)(a)and(b)oftheDirectiveprovidesthatTheregisteredtrademark shallconferonitsproprietorexclusiverightstherein.Theproprietorshallbeentitledto preventallthirdpartiesnothavinghisconsentfromusinginthecourseoftrade:(a)anysign whichisidenticalwiththetrademarkinrelationtogoodsorserviceswhichareidenticalwith thoseforwhichthetrademarkisregistered;(b)anysignwhere,becauseofitsidentitywith, orsimilarityto,thetrademarkandtheidentityorsimilarityofthegoodsorservicescovered bythetrademarkandthesign,thereexistsalikelihoodofconfusiononthepartofthepublic, whichincludesthelikelihoodofassociationbetweenthesignandthetrademark.Thesame appli sunderArticle9(l)(a)and(b)oftheRegulation. e

4.

Theconceptofuseandlimitationsonprotection

IntheUnited States of America,apartfromthefairuseofthetrademark,nospecific categoryofuseofamarkbythirdpartieswillbeexemptedfromthescopeofprotection.For example,advertisinguse,decorativeuse,useinanotherdimensionoruseintransitmaybe heldasaninfringement. Thetrendinmostmodernlawsistoadoptthesamebroadview.Forexample,thelaws ofsomeMemberStatesoftheEuropeanCommunitieswillhavetobeamended,sincethe above-mentionedDirectivespecificallyprovidesthattheuseofasigninadvertisingshouldbe prohibited. Asregardslimitationsonprotection,theEuropean CommunityDirectivecanbecited. Withrespecttotheuseofonesownnameandothernecessaryindications,Article6(1) providesthatTherightconferredbythetrademarkshallnotentitletheproprietortoprohibit athirdpartyfromusing,inthecourseoftrade:(a)hisownnameoraddress;(b)indications concerningthekind,quality,quantity,intendedpurpose,value,geographicalorigin,thetime

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page11

ofproductionofgoodsorofrenderingoftheservice,orothercharacteristicsofgoodsor services;(c)thetrademarkwhereitisnecessarytoindicatetheintendedpurposeofaproduct orservice,inparticularasaccessoriesorspareparts;providedheusestheminaccordance withhonestpracticesinindustrialorcommercialmatters.Thislastindicationmeansthat thosepermittedformsofuseshouldnotconstituteactsofunfaircompetition.Inparticular, Article6(1)oftheDirectivewouldallowsomeonewhoseownnameisthesameasthatofa famoussportsmanorfictionalcharactertousehisnameinthecourseoftrade, notwithstandingtheregistrationofthefamousnameasatrademark,providedsuchuseisin accordancewithhonestpractices(thatis,itdoesnotsuggestthatthereisaconnectionwith thefamousbearerofthename). Asfortheexhaustionofthetrademarkright,Article7providesthatThetrademark shallnotentitletheproprietortoprohibititsuseinrelationtogoodswhichhavebeenputon themarketintheCommunityunderthetrademarkbytheproprietororwithhisconsent unlessthereexistlegitimatereasonsfortheproprietortoopposefurthercommercialization ofthegoods,especiallywheretheconditionofthegoodsischangedorimpairedafterthey havebeenputonthemarket.Tojustifythislimitation,ithasoftenbeenfoundnecessary,or desirable,toimposeconditionsthatpreventtrademarksfrombeingusedtodivideupmarkets ortocreateartificialbarrierstofreetrade.Oncegoodshavebeenplacedontherelevant market(country,groupofcountries)bythetrademarkowneroronhisbehalf,theowners rightsareexhausted.Thatistosay,hecannotpreventuseofthetrademarkbythirdpartiesin relationtothosegoods.Thirdpartiesmay, forexample,re-sellthemarkedgoodsandmay usethemarkinpromotingsuchsales,withoutinterferencefromtheownerofthetrademark. Thisissubjecttotheimportantqualificationthatthegoodsmustnothaveundergoneany changeorimpairment,suchas,forexample,thedilutionofthegoods,themixingofthegoods withothersortherepackagingofthosegoods. Finally,withrespecttotheconsequenceoftolerance,Article9(1)and(2)providesthat (1)Where,inaMemberState,theproprietorofanearliertrademark...hasacquiesced,for aperiodoffivesuccessiveyears,intheuseofalatertrademarkregisteredinthatMember Statewhilebeingawareofsuchuse,heshallnolongerbeentitledonthebasisoftheearlier trademarkeithertoapplyforadeclarationthatthelatertrademarkisinvalidortoopposethe useofthelatertrademarkinrespectofthegoodsorservicesforwhichthelatertrademark hasbeenused,unlessregistrationofthelatertrademarkwasappliedforinbadfaith.(2) AnyMemberStatemayprovidethat(thisprovision)shallapplymutatismutandistoatrade markwhichhasareputation,toanon-registeredtrademarkortoanothersignortoanother earlierright(name,personalportrayal,copyright).

5.

Dilutionandotherformsofextendedprotection

InFrance,anactionfordilutionormisappropriationofawell-knowntrademarkis adoptedwithinthenewtrademarklaw.Theextendedprotectionisgenerallyrecognizedwhen theuseofasignonnon-similargoodsorservicescausesprejudicetotheownerofthe trademarkortakesunfairadvantageofthereputationofthetrademark.

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page12

InGermany,dilutionprotectionforfamoustrademarksagainsttheirusefordissimilar goodsorservicesisavailableundertortlaw(paragraph823oftheCivilCode).Thepurpose istoaffordprotectiontotrademarkswhichhaveachievedauniquedistinctivenessand reputationandthereforeadvertisingforceagainstthedilutionoftheircommercial magnetismthroughtheuseofidenticalorsimilarsignsormarksondissimilargoodsor services.Theabove-mentionedparagraph823oftheCivilCodeprotectstherightsofa personinhisbusiness,withallitstangibleandintangibleassetsofwhichthefamousmarkis averyvaluablepart,againstunlawfulinterference.Thisdoctrineisbasedonthe considerationthattheownerofatrademarkwhohasinvestedsomucheffortinacquiringa uniquepositionhasaninterestworthyofprotectioninensuringthatthetrademarkkeepsits distinctiveness.Sincetheprotectionoftrademarksbeyondthescopeofsimilargoodsmustbe exceptional,therequirementswhichhavetobefulfilledareverystrict(awarenessofthe trademark,measuredinopinionpolls,onthepartofatleast70to80%oftheGerman population;possession,bythetrademark,ofasolepositioninthemarketandofacertain amountoforiginalitysoastobedistinctiveenoughforthepublictoassociateitwiththe specificgoodsforwhichitstands).Thislatterpreconditionwillusuallynotbepresentin charactermerchandisingcasesifalicensefortheuseofthecharacteroncertaingoodsis grantedtomorethanonelicensee.Furthermorethetrademarkmustbeveryhighly appreciatedbythepublic,andthispositiveevaluationmusthaveledtoanincreaseddemand forthegoodsbearingthecharacter.Finally,whileariskofconfusionisnotrequired,the infringingusemustactuallybecapableofendangeringtheuniqueadvertisingforceofthe famoustrademark,inthesensethatthereisarealdangerofinjurytoitscompetitiveposition. Inpractice,thosestrictpreconditionsareseldommet.Itisconsideredthatprobablythe charactersofWaltDisneywouldenjoysuchprotectioninGermanytotheextentthatthey weretrademarks. InAustralia,independentprotectionfortrademarkdilutionorasimilarkindof protectionisonlyavailable,forthetimebeing,undertheTradePracticesAct.Furthermore, famoustrademarksmay,inprinciple,bethesubjectofdefensiveregistrations.However, defensiveregistrationisonly possibleforinventedwordsandisnotavailableforservices. Whereadefensiveregistrationisinvolved,infringementoccursonlywhenidenticalorsimilar trademarksareusedforgoodscoveredbythedefensiveregistration.IntheUnitedKingdom, thoseproblemswillbeaddressedinthecourseofthereformofthetrademarklaw,whichis expectedtoreplacethesystemofdefensiveregistrationswithprovisionsenablingvery famoustrademarkstobeprotectedoutsidethescopeoftheregistration. IntheUnited Kingdom,theTradeMarksAct1994implementsArticle5(2)ofthe EuropeanCommunityDirective,whichallowsmemberStatesoftheEuropeanCommunities toprovidethattheproprietorofaregisteredtrademarkshallbeentitledtopreventallthird partiesnothavinghisconsentfromusinginthecourseoftradeanysignwhichisidentical with,orsimilarto,thetrademarkinrelationtogoodsorserviceswhicharenotsimilarto thoseforwhichthetrademarkisregistered,wherethelatterhasareputationintheMember Stateandwhereuseofthatsignwithoutduecausetakesunfairadvantageof,orisdetrimental to,thedistinctivecharacterorthereputeofthetrademark. InJapan,theprotectionundertrademarklawextendsonlytoidenticalorsimilargoods. Abroaderprotectioninthatrespectarisesfromthelawonunfaircompetition.Itshould howeverbenotedthattheTrademarkActprovidesthatdefensiveregistrationsareavailable (notlimitedtoinventedwords).Adefensiveregistrationcanbeobtainedforatrademark whichissowidelyknownamongconsumersasindicatingthedesignatedgoodsthatathird

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page13

partysuseofthetrademark,evenondissimilargoods,wouldcauseconfusionastotheorigin ofthosegoods.Itisnotnecessarytoshowthattheownerwillusethetrademarkonthegoods withinthedefensiveregistration.Inpractice,itshouldbenotedthatfewdefensive registrationsaregranted.AnexamplemaybegiveninthedecisionoftheCourtofKobe (March25,1987),whichinvolvedtheownersofthemarkChanelwhichsuedaJapanese companyusingthewordsHotelChaneltodesignateahotel.Suchusewasconsideredasa dilutionofthegoodwillinthefamousChaneltrademark.Thedecisionwasbasedonthe CommercialCode,onthelawagainstunfaircompetitionandontheCivilCode. IntheUnited States of America,theLanhamActdoesnotincludeaprovisionallowing adilutionaction.However,almosthalfoftheindividualstates(includingmajorcommercial stateslikeNewYork,CaliforniaandFlorida)haveenacteddilutionstatutes,whichprotect trademarkownersagainstthelikelihoodofinjurytobusinessreputationorofdilutionofthe distinctivequalityofthetrademark.Inthatrespect,paragraph12oftheModelState TrademarkBillprovidesthatLikelihoodofinjurytobusinessreputationorofdilutionofthe distinctivequalityofamarkregisteredunderthisAct,oramarkvalidatcommonlawora tradenamevalidatcommonlaw,shallbeagroundforinjunctivereliefnotwithstandingthe absenceofcompetitionbetweenthepartiesortheabsenceofconfusionastothesourceof goodsorservices.

6.

Scopeofprotectionillustratedbycaselaw Thiscase5involvestheWorldWideFundforNature(WWF).

TheWWF,anassociationconstitutedunderthelawsofSwitzerland,holdsatrademark registrationinFrancerepresentingthedeviceofitssymbol,theGiantPanda.Theregistration coversthegoodsandservicesinall42classesoftheInternationalClassification.TheWWF isrepresentedinFrancebyWWFFrance,anassociationconstitutedunderthelawsofFrance, which,followinganagreementbetweenthetwoassociations,istheassigneeoftherightto useintheinstitutional,promotionalandcommercialfields,thenameandsymbolofthe WWFandtheemblemofthePanda.Bothassociationslearnedthatatrademarkapplication forwords(havingnothingtodowiththewordPandaorthelettersWWF)andthepanda devicehadbeenfiledinFrancebyacompany(hereinafterreferredtoasCompanyX)to coverbagsandriceinInternationalClasses22and30.BothassociationssuedCompanyX foractsofinfringementoratleastunlawfulimitationandforactsofunfaircompetitionor parasiticpractices.Inacounter-claim,CompanyXdemandedthattheWWFregistrationbe cancelledasregardsClasses22and30fornon-useduringthelastfiveyears.Thetwo trademarksarereproducedhereunder:

TribunaldegrandeinstancedeParis,3eChambre,December4,1991.

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page14

Themostsignificantpartsofthedecisioncanbesummarizedasfollows:The protectionresultingfromthetrademarklawappliestothesigndeterminedbytheregistration andnottoagivenfamilyorstyle.Therefore,althoughthesignoftheWWFisfamous,the reproductionoftheimageofapandaisnot,assuch,reprehensible.Whatcouldbe reprehensibleisthereproductionofthecharacteristicelementsoftheWWFsregistration. Firstly,thealternanceofblackandwhiteisnotaprotectablecharacteristicsinceit correspondstotherepresentationofnature;whatisprotectableisthepositionandshapeof thepanda.Bothpandasaredifferentasregardstheirpositions(oneiswalking,theother lying),andbecause,forthepandaofCompanyX,ofthemouthhiddenbyapawandthe presenceofatoy(afootball).Thosedifferencesnotonlyexcludeinfringementbutalsoavoid anyriskofconfusionevenonthepartofanaverageconsumernothavingbothmarksbefore hiseyesatthesametime;theglobalvisualimpressionbetweenthetwopandasistotally different,oneevokingthepandainitsnaturalelementinawalkingposition,theotherevoking ateddypandabecauseoftheplayfulnesssuggestedbytheinclusionofatoy(football).In consequence,thereisneitherinfringementnorunlawfulimitation.AlthoughtheWWF trademarkisalsousedasashopsignandatradename,thetrademarkofCompanyX,forthe above-mentionedreasonsandbecausethereisnoriskofconfusion,cannotinfringethe WWFsdistinctivepandasign.Thereisfurthermorenobasisforaclaimofunfair competitionorparasiticpractice.Asregardsthecounter-claimofCompanyXfor invalidationoftheWWFsregistrationinClasses22and30,theWWFconteststhatclaim andindicatesthatitusesitsmarkforproductsinClass22,andhasgrantedtemporarylicenses tocompanieswhichusethemarkforfoodstuffsinClass30.Itresultsfromthesale cataloguesofWWFthatstationeryarticles(paper,labels)andplasticbags(sportsbags)are soldunderthepandamark.ThereforetheWWFdemonstratesthatitsellsgoodsfallingin Class20,whichshouldbeconsideredsimilartoproductsinClass22,sincethesacksandbags inClass22(definedasthosenotincludedinotherclasses)canbeconfused,astotheirorigin, withtheproductsinClass20.AsregardstheproductsinClass30,theWWFshowsthatit hasconcludedlicenseagreementswithseveralcompanies(BiscuitsStMichel,Rowntree Macintosh,KelloggsProduitsAlimentaires,photographicAgencyBiosandFoundationCote dOr);theuseofthepandadeviceisauthorizedagainstpaymentofroyalties,anditis providedthatthemarkwillbeusedonthepackagingofproductsandonthepromotional materialrelatingtothatoperation.Itresultsfromthedocumentspresentedthatthepanda deviceisnotusedtodesignateassuchproductsinClass30butonlytoserveadvertising purposesbothforthepromotionofproductsandtheraisingoffundsfortheWWF.The trademarkdoesnot,inthoseuses,performitsfunctionwhichistodistinguishtheproduct offeredforsale;nopublicornon-ambiguousexploitationofthetrademarkistherefore demonstratedbytheWWFduringthefiveyearsprecedingthedateoftherequestfor cancellationbyCompanyX,andtherightsoftheWWFinitstrademarkinClass30shouldbe denied.

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page15

UnfairCompetition(IncludingPassing-Off) 1. Unfaircompetitiongovernedbygeneralprinciplesoflaw

InChile,Article2314oftheCivilCodesetsforthingeneraltermstheprincipleof extra-contractualresponsibilitybystatingthatwheresomeonehas,eitherintentionallyor negligently,committedanactwhichhascauseddamagetoanother,theywillbeliableto indemnifytheharmdone.Furthermore,thenewindustrialpropertylegislation,withrespect totrademarks,providesinitsArticle20(j)thatatrademarkshouldnotbecontrarytothe principlesoffaircompetitionortotradeethics. InFrance,Article1382oftheCivilCodeprovidesthatanyactwhatsoeverofaperson whichcausesdamagetoanybodyelseobligesthepersonbywhosefaultthedamagehasbeen causedtorepairit.Thisconstitutesaverygeneralprovisionwhichcanbeusedwhenno specificlegalformofprotectionisavailable(forexample,whenthenameofaliterary characterisnotprotectedbycopyrightortrademarkorwhereatradenameorshopsignisnot protectedasatrademark). Thenotionofunfaircompetition,whilefoundedoncivilliabilityasprovidedforin Article1382oftheCivilCode,developedmainlythroughjurisprudence.Theprinciplesof civilliabilityrequirethatthreeelementsshouldexist:aprejudice,afaultandacausalitylink betweentheprejudiceandthefault.Inacourtaction,theholderofarightwillclaimnotonly infringementofaprotectedrightinatrademark,industrialdesignorliteraryorartisticwork, butalsoaseparateactofunfaircompetition.Ingeneral,courtswillbereluctanttorecognize anindependentactofunfaircompetition,especiallyinthecontextofmerchandisingwhere theeffectiveuseismadebylicenseesandnotbytheholderoftheright.Inthelattercase, licenseesoftenjointheactionwiththeholdertoclaimcompensationfortheirownprejudice basedonunfaircompetition. Inprinciple,sothattherebeaprejudice,thepartiesinvolvedshouldbeinadirect competitiverelationship(withrespecttotheiractivities,goods,locations,etc.).Inthecontext ofthemerchandisingoftheattributesofafictionalcharacterorofarealperson,anactwillbe consideredunfairif,onthepartofthepublic,thereisariskofconfusionastothegoodsor servicesorastotheirorigin.Therefore,useofthenameorimageofacharacterinasimilar workwouldbeconsideredascausingaprejudice. However,wherewell-knowntrademarks,tradenames,shopsigns,namesorimagesof charactersandpersonalitiesareinvolved,andwherethepartiesmaynotbeindirect competition,orwherenoriskofconfusionispossible,thenotionofabuseofrights (misappropriationasaparasiticpractice)maybeconsideredbythecourtswheretheuseofa trademark,forexample,isconsideredwrongfulandprejudicialbecauseitisbeingmadeto takeadvantageofthetrademarksreputation,orwheresuchusemaydiluteitsdistinctiveness. Appliedtoshopsigns,thiswillmeanthatunfaircompetitionwillnormallyberecognized whentwotradersusethesamesign,havethesameactivitiesandarelocatedonthesame territory(usuallymuchsmallerthantheboundariesofacountry);however,whentheshop signisconsideredfamoustheprotectionaffordedwillbebroader(forexample,theownerof therestaurantMaximsinPariswasabletopreventtheuseofthesamesignforarestaurant inNice,inthesouthofFrance).

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page16

Othercaseswillillustratethisbroaderprotection:forexample,theheirsofthefamous painterPaulCezannewereabletopreventtheuseofthenamePaulCezanneastheshop signofapicturegallery,eventhoughitwaslocatedintheruePaulCezanneinParis;a companytradinginthejewellerybusinesscalledMorabitoBoutiquewasabletohavea personrestrainedfromusinghissurnameMorabitoaloneinthesamefield,andobligedto tradeunderthenamePascalMorabitotoavoidanyriskofconfusiononthepartofthe public.

2.

Passing-off

Passing-offoriginatedintheUnited Kingdomandexistsnowinmostcommon-law countries.Simplystated,passing-offisatortwhichcameintoexistencetoprotectthe goodwill(valueoftheestablishedreputationandconnectionsofabusiness)ofatradeagainst themisuseofitstrademarks,businessnameorgeneralget-up,inotherwordstostopthe misuseofareputation.Itisnotastraightforwardmattertoapplypassing-offtotheprotection ofcharactermerchandising. Firstly,inordertoshowthattheplaintiffhasthegoodwillnecessarytosustaina passing-offaction,theremustbeevidencethattheplaintiffisengagedinabusiness.Inmost countries,businesswillbeunderstoodtoincludetheworkdonebyprofessionals,sportsmen, artists,cartoonists,writersandperformers(actorsormusicians).Thereputationofatrader willnormallybelimitedtoanameoratrademarkdesignatinghisorhergoodsorservices.In thecaseofperformances,films,literary,dramaticorartisticworks,thereputationmayreside inacharacterportrayedintheperformanceorwork.Ifthecharacterattractsthereader, listenerorviewer,therewillbegoodwillattachingtothatcharacterortothecharactersname. Secondly,itappearsthattheproofofamisrepresentationcausingconfusionmay sometimesbedifficulttoestablishincasesinvolvingthemerchandisingoffictionalcharacters orrealpersons,exceptincaseswherethedefendantinapassing-offactionexploitsafictional characterinamediumsimilartotheoneinwhichitwasoriginallyportrayedbytheplaintiff (forexample,whereadefendantmakesafilmfeaturingthepopularprotagonistofthe plaintiffsfilms).Thecourtshaveoftentakentheviewthatmisrepresentationwillonlyoccur whenthepartiesareactuallyengagedinacommonfieldofactivity.Itshouldhoweverbe notedthat,asamatteroflaw,thedifferenceinthefieldsofactivitydoesnotautomaticallybar theestablishmentofpassing-off. Afurtherproblemrelatestothelikelihoodofconfusion.Itisoftenconsideredthatif thecreatorofafictionalcharacterhasnevertradedandbuiltupgoodwillingoodsotherthan inrelationtotheoriginalwork(abookoratelevisionseries),thelikelihoodofconfusionwill notbeproved,sinceithasbeenconsideredthattheuseofthecharacteroutsidethecontextof theoriginalworkwouldnotmisleadconsumerswhocouldnotreasonablybelieveinthe relationshipbetweentheplaintiffanddefendant.Inotherwords,inthefieldofcharacter, personalityorimagemerchandising,where,inmanycases,betweentheplaintiffandthe defendant,thereisnocommonfieldofactivity,thedefendantisnotadirectcompetitorand thegoodsaresodifferentthatnooneislikelytobedeceived,theplaintiffscaseisharder sincehehastosatisfythecourtthat,despitetheabsenceofacommonlinkbetweentheparties involved,asubstantialnumberofpeoplearelikelytobedeceivedbythedefendantsactivities intothinkingthatthereissomesortofconnectionorassociationbetweentheplaintiff,his businessorhisgoodsandthedefendantsbusinessorgoods.

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page17

Agoodillustrationofthetraditionalinterpretationofthecommonfieldofactivity requirementappliedtomerchandisingcanbefoundinseveralcasesintheUnited Kingdom datingfrom1947to1977. IntheUncleMacCase(McCullochv.LewisA.May(ProduceDistributors)Ltd(1947)), theplaintiff,whowasawell-knownchildrensbroadcasterunderthenameUncleMac, failedinhisactiontopreventthedefendantsfromdistributingabreakfastcerealunderthe nameUncleMacsPuffedWheat. IntheConanDoylev.LondonMysteryMagazineLtdcase(1949),theplaintiff,who wastheexecutorofSirArthurConanDoyle,failedtoenjointhedefendantsfrompublishinga magazine,theLondonMysteryMagazinefrom221BBakerStreet,thefictionaladdressof ConanDoylescharacterSherlockHolmes. IntheWomblesv.WomblesSkipscase(1975),theplaintiff,whowasthebeneficiaryof thecreationofaseriesofwell-knowncharacterscalledTheWombles,oneofwhoseactivities waspickinguprubbish,failedtoenjointhedefendant,whosebusinesswastheleasingof skips,orlargecontainers,forthecollectionofrubbish,fromtradingunderthename Wombles. Finally,intheTavernerRutledgev.Trexapalmcase(1977),itwasnotconsidered passing-offfortraderstouseacharactersname(Kojak)fortheirlollipops,althoughthe distinguishingfeatureofthefictionaldetectivecharacterappearinginatelevisionserieswas hisfondnessoflollipops.Itwasemphasizedthatthefieldsofactivityofatelevisionstudio andamanufacturerofconfectioneryweretooremotefromeachothertoleadtoconfusion, andtheevidenceinthecasedidnotestablishthatthepublicwouldassociatethedefendants goodswiththeplaintiffsbusiness. IntheUnited Kingdom,theessenceofthepassing-offactionwasclarified(bytwo complementarystatements)inajudgmentintheCourtofAppealintheso-calledAdvocaat case(ErvenWarninkB.V.v.J.Townend&Sons(Hull)Ltd(1979)). Inthefirst statement,itwasconsideredthataclaiminpassing-offcouldnotsucceed unlesstheplaintiffcouldestablish(1)amisrepresentation;(2)madebyatraderinthe courseoftrade;(3)toprospectivecustomersofhisorultimateconsumersofgoodsor servicessuppliedbyhim;(4)whichiscalculatedtoinjurethebusinessorgoodwillofanother trader(inthesensethatthisisareasonablyforeseeableconsequence)and(5)whichcauses actualdamagetoabusinessorgoodwillofthetraderbywhomtheactionisbroughtor(ina quiatimetaction)willprobablydoso. Inthesecond statement,itwasconsideredessentialfortheplaintiffinapassing-off actiontoshowatleastthefollowingfacts:(1)thathisbusinessconsistsof,orincludes, sellinginEnglandaclassofgoodstowhichtheparticulartradenameapplies;(2)thatthe classofgoodsisclearlydefined,andthatinthemindsofthepublic,orasectionofthepublic, inEngland,thetradenamedistinguishesthatclassfromothersimilargoods;(3)thatbecause ofthereputationofthegoods,thereisgoodwillattachedtothename;(4)thathe,the plaintiff,asamemberoftheclassofthosewhosellthegoods,istheownerofgoodwillin Englandwhichisofsubstantialvalue;(5)thathehassuffered,orisreallylikelytosuffer, substantialdamagetohispropertyinthegoodwillbyreasonofthedefendantssellinggoods whicharefalselydescribedbythetradenametowhichthegoodwillisattached.Assaid,

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page18

thosetwostatementsofprinciplecomplementoneanother,thefirststatementemphasizing whathasbeendonebythedefendanttogiverisetothecomplaint,andthesecondstatement, whattheplaintiffhastoshowasaprerequisiteofcomplaining. InsomecasessubsequenttotheAdvocaatdecision,theabsenceofrelatedfieldsof activityhasbeendisregarded.ThismorefavorabledevelopmentbeganwiththeLegocase in1983,inwhichthemakersofthefamousLegotoyswereabletopreventthesaleofgarden equipmentunderthisname.Inthemerchandisingfieldthecommonactivityrequirementis alsolessstrictsinceitisconsideredthatthelevelofpublicawarenessofmerchandising practiceisnowgreaterandthepracticeoflicensingtheuseofcharactersisknowntoa substantialnumberofconsumers.Therefore,ithasbecomeeasiertoprovethattheeffectofa (defendant)tradersactivityistopreempttheplaintiffslicensingprogram.Itcanbesaid that,whileinrecentyearstheeffectivenessofpassing-offhasbeenseverelyreducedinthe UnitedKingdom,theopportunitiesformerchandisingactivitieshavelatelybeenmore seriouslyconsideredasapossibleprejudicetothegoodwillofmerchandisers,especially whereawidevarietyofgoodsarebeingmarketedunderaname.Thiswas,forexample, emphasizedintheJudgeDreddcase(IPCMagazinesLtdv.BlackandWhiteMusic Corporation(1983)),whichinvolvedtheunauthorizeduseofacartooncharactersnameona record;itwassaidthatatthepresenttimethepublicknowsomethingabouttheprevalent practiceofcharactermerchandising...andIthinkthatamongpeople...whobuyrecordsand readsuchmagazinesasthese,asubstantialnumberofpeoplewillinferthattherecordhas beenauthorizedandapprovedbytheplaintiff. Thismorefavorablepositionwasconfirmedinarecentcase(MirageStudiosv. CounterfeitClothingCompanyLtd(1991)),whichinvolvedtheuseoftheimageofthe famousfictionalNinjaTurtles,whichwerethesubjectofanextensivebusinesslicensing. Thedefendantshadcommissionedvariousdesignsdepictingturtlecharactersandhad licensedclothingmanufacturerstoapplythosedesignstoT-shirts.Theevidenceinthecase showedthatthepublicmistookthedefendantsturtlesforthegenuineNinjaTurtles.The publicwouldthereforeassociatewhattheymistakenlythoughttobetheplaintiffsTurtles withtheplaintiffs.Itwasconsideredthatthedefendantsweremisrepresentingtheirproducts asbeingnotonlygenuine,butalsolicensed. Thislattercaseisalsoimportantfortheconditionthat,evenifthereis misrepresentation,thereshouldbeevidenceoflikelihoodofdamagetothegoodwillofthe plaintiff(especiallyincaseswherethefieldsofactivityaredifferent).IntheNinjaTurtle case,itwasconsideredthatthebusinessoftheplaintiffsincludedturningtoaccountthe NinjaTurtlecharactersbylicensingtheirreproductionongoodssoldbyotherpeople(its otherbusinessbeingthecreationandexploitationofthecartoonsandfilmsthemselves);the activityofthedefendantsdamagedtheplaintiffssincetheywouldnotonlyloseroyalties,but theirlicensingrightswouldbedamagedby thedefendantsinferiorgoods. Inothercommon-lawcountries,charactermerchandisingactivityhasbeenmoreeasily recognized. InAustralia,sincetheHendersoncasein1960(involvingtheuseofaphotographofthe plaintiffonarecordsleeve),therehasbeenamoreflexibleapproach,asregardspassing-off actions,towardsmerchandising,sincethecourtshaveoftendeclinedtofollowthestrict applicationofthecommonfieldofactivityrequirement.Itshouldalsobenotedthat passing-offactionshaveoftenbeensupplementedbyactionsundersupplementarystatutes

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page19

suchastheTradePracticesAct(TPA)of1974. AsintheUnitedKingdom,thepassing-offactionisthestandardremedyforprotection ofunregisteredmarksandthebasisofthetortissimilarlyamisrepresentationcalculatedto damagetheplaintiffsgoodwill.However,Australiancourtshavebeenquickerto acknowledgeconsumerawarenessofmerchandising. Forexample,intheMuppetscase(ChildrensTelevisionWorkshopInc.v. Woolworths(NSW)Ltd(1981)),evidencewasadducedthattheplaintiffsexercisedstrict qualitycontrolandthattheyhadbuiltupthegoodwillnecessarytosupportapassing-off actionthroughtheirlicensingprogram.Thedefendantswererestrainedfrommarketingplush toysrepresentingthecharactersoftheplaintiffs;itwasconsideredthattherewasan associationinthemindsofthepublicbetweentheplaintiffsasproducersofTVseriesand representationsoftheircharactersinanyform. Anotherimportantaspect(relevanttoimagemerchandising)relatestotheadvertising useofwell-knownfilmscenes.IncaseswhichgenerallyrelatedtothefilmCrocodile Dundee,itwasheldthatcharactermerchandisingpersewasnotonlyprotectableunderthe TradePracticesActbutalsounderpassing-offevenwheretheonlybusinesscarriedoutbythe plaintiffwasthecreationofworksfeaturingthecharacter. Forexample,inthePaulHoganv.KoalaDundeePtyLtd(1988)case,theplaintiffwas theactorPaulHogan,playerofthewell-knowncharacterCrocodileDundee,whilethe defendantsownedseveralshopscalledDundeeCountyandusedonsignsinsideandoutside thoseshops,andonT-shirts,shoppingbagsandclothingtags,animageshowingpartofa koalabeardressedinamannerassociatedwiththecharacterCrocodileDundee.Itwas consideredthatthesuggestedassociationbetweentheCrocodileDundeecharacterandthe defendantsshopsandgoodsconstitutedasufficientmisrepresentation. InthePaulHoganv.PacificDunlop(1989)case,thesameplaintiffalsowonacase whereafamousscenefromtheCrocodileDundeefilmwasadaptedtoadvertisethe defendantsgoods(shoes).ItwasheldthatitwasgenerallyrecognizedthatPaulHoganmade apracticeoflicensinghisname,sothatthepublicwouldbedeceivedintothinkingthat approvalorlicensehadbeengivenwhenithadnot.Itwasfurtheracceptedthatthe possessorsofwell-knownnamesandimagescontrolcarefullytheusethatmaybemade thereof,withtheconsequencethatanyunauthorizedusewillalmostinevitablybecomean actionablemisrepresentation. Itshouldhoweverbenotedthat,notwithstandingotheravailableremediessuchas protectionagainstdefamationorappropriationofpersonalityrights(seedevelopments below),twotypesofcaseareoutsidethescopeofthisbroaderapproachtowardsapassing-off action,namelywheretheplaintiffisapublicfigurebutthedefendantsactivitiesarelikely neithertocauseconfusionnortoconstitutedeception,andwheretheplaintiffissimplya privateindividualwithnopreviousgoodwillorreputation. Toconcludeandsummarize,itappearsthatinAustraliathepracticeistointerpret broadlythenotionofassociationandtoconsideritasamisappropriationinthesenseofthe takingassuchofareputationorbusinessvalue. AsregardsCanada,twoformsprevail,namelythestatutorypassing-offandthe common-lawpassing-off.Forthestatutorypassing-off,themainprovision(whichplacesin

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page20

statutoryformthecommon-lawprohibitionofcertainactswhichamounttopassing-off)isto befoundinSection7(b)oftheTradeMarksActwhichprovidesthatnopersonshalldirect publicattentiontohiswares,servicesorbusinessinsuchawayastocauseorbelikelyto causeconfusioninCanada,atthetimehecommencedsotodirectattentiontothem,between hiswares,servicesorbusinessandthewares,servicesorbusinessofanother. Thisprovisionandothersregulatingtheconceptofunfaircompetition(whichfollowing aconstitutionaldebatewereheldbytheFederalCourtofAppealtobewithinitscompetence) createacivilremedyinrelationtotrademarks,whetherregisteredornot,whichmaybewider inscopethanthecommon-lawtortofpassing-off.Theconstitutingelementsarefalseor misleadingstatementsmadebyacompetitorthattendtodiscreditthebusiness,waresor servicesoftheplaintiff.Inthecontextofmerchandising,themostimportantthingisthatthe commonfieldofactivityrequirementdoesnotapply,andthegoodsorservicesconcerned neednotbesimilar,thekeyelementbeingtheexistenceofconfusionorpossibleconfusion constitutingpublicdeception.However,noactionwilllieunderstatutorypassing-offwhere theplaintiffanddefendantdonottradeinthesameterritorialareaofthecountry. Withrespecttocommon-lawpassing-off,theconstituentelementsareclosetothose appliedintheUnitedKingdomandAustralia(reputationoftheplaintiffsgoodsorservices; misrepresentationbythedefendantofhiswaresorservices;actualconfusionorlikelihoodof confusioninthepublicsmindbetweenthegoodsorservicesofthepartiesandexistenceofa prejudicefortheplaintiff).However,Canadastillrequiresthatacommonfieldofactivitybe establishedbetweentheplaintiffandthedefendant,whichhasledpersonsinvolvedinthe merchandisingoffictionalcharactersandofrealpersonstorelymoreonotherformsof protection(seedevelopmentsondefamationandpersonalityrights)andoncopyright. Nevertheless,inarecentcase(ParamountPicturesv.Howley(1991)),theplaintiffwononthe basisofpassing-off(interalia)anditwasconsideredthatthebusinessoflicensingthename ofCrocodileDundeewouldbeadverselyaffectedbythedefendantsactivities,andthatstores purchasingthedefendantsgoodswoulderroneouslyassumethatthedefendanthadbeen licensedbytheplaintiff. TheconceptioninseveralprovincesofCanadamaybedifferent.Forexample,the Province of QuebecfollowstheFrenchsystem,andArticle1457oftheCodeisequivalentto Article1382oftheFrenchCivilCode(seeparagraph206,above).Itencompassesseveral formsofoffensesincludingpassing-off,andisusedtopreventapersonsname,imageor personalityfrombeingusedforcommercialpurposeswithoutthepersonsknowledgeor consent.However,itsuseislimitedinthecontextofmerchandising,sincetherestrictive commonfieldofactivityrequirementstillexists. WithrespecttoIndiaandNigeria,nopassing-offactionsinthecontextoffictional merchandisingofcharactersorrealpersonshavebeentraced.Itisthereforedifficultto indicatewhetherthecourtswouldfollowanarrowapproachinvolvingthecommonfieldof activityrequirementandtheactualdamagerequirementorthemoreflexibleapproach existingmainlyinAustralia.Itcanhoweverbenotedthatinbothcountriestheconceptof businessisinterpretedbroadly,sinceitincludesprofessionsandnon-tradingactivities,such asartisticactivities.

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page21

3.

Specialstatutes Supplementaryspecialstatutes

InAustralia,someactsofunfaircompetitionmayalsoberestrainedbytheTrade PracticesAct(TPA)1974;thisActprovidesmainlyforconsumerprotectionmeasuresandit isheldtoconferprivaterightsofaction,notonlyforcorporatebodiesbutalsoforindividual personalities,withaviewtopreventingmisleadingordeceptiveconduct.Oneofthe interestingaspectsofthisActisthatitcontainsnorequirementofhavingabusiness reputationinrespectofparticulargoodsorservices.Furthermore,unlikethecommon-law tort,theremediesprovided(civilremedies)donotrequireactualdamagetotheplaintiffs goodwill,orthelikelihoodofit,tobeshown. TwosectionsofthisActmaybecited:Section52(1),whichprovidesthata corporationshallnot,intradeorcommerce,engageinconductthatismisleadingordeceptive orislikelytomisleadordeceiveandSection53,whichprovidesinteraliathata corporationshallnot,intradeorcommerce,inconnectionwiththesupplyorpossiblesupply ofgoodsorservicesorinconnectionwiththepromotionbyanymeansofthesupplyoruseof goodsorservices...(c)representthatgoodsorserviceshavesponsorship,approval...theydo nothave;(d)representthatthecorporationhasasponsorship,approvaloraffiliationitdoes nothave. AnexampleoftheuseoftheActinthecontextofpersonalitymerchandisingis providedbythecaseofHutchence(tradingasINXS)v.SouthSeaBubbleCoPtyLtd(1986), whereitwasheldthattheunauthorizedsaleofT-shirtsbearingtheindiciaofapopgroup, INXS,contravenedSections52and53andamountedtopassing-off,eventhoughtheshirts boreadisclaimerofanyauthorizationfromthegroup. InCanada,thereisastatutereferredtoastheCompetitionAct,whichcontains provisionsrelatingtodeceptivemarketingpracticesaswellasthemaintenanceof competition.WhiletheActasawholecontainsbothcriminalandnon-criminalprovisions, theprovisionsrelatingtomarketingpractices(includingtestimonials)arecriminalinnature. Inessence,theActmakesitacriminaloffensetorepresenttothepublicthatapersonhas testedaproductortopublishatestimonialunlesssucharepresentationortestimonialhas beenpreviouslypublishedbythatpersonorthatpersonsapprovalhasbeenpreviously publishedbythatpersonorthatpersonsapprovalhasbeenreceived. InFrance,thereareanumberofstatutesrelatingtoconsumerprotection,forexample, theLotRoyerof1973whichprohibitsmisleadingadvertising. InIndia,veryfamouspersons,althoughtoalimitedextent,mayinvokethePrevention ofImproperUseAct1950,whichprovidesforalistofnames,emblemsandthelikewhich arenottobeusedinthecourseoftrade. IntheUnited Kingdom,theTradeDescriptionsAct1968providesforcriminalliability wherefalsetradedescriptionsareused.Tradedescriptionsaredefinedtoincludeapprovalby anypersonorconformitywithatypeapprovedbyanyperson.Falsetradedescriptionis definedtoincludeafalseindicationthatanygoods(orservices)complywithastandard specifiedorrecognizedbyanypersonorimpliedbytheapprovalofanyperson.

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page22

Specialstatutes IntheUnited Statesof America,thereisnoonefederallawspecificallydevotedto unfaircompetition.However,theconceptofunfaircompetitionresidesbothinfederal antitrustlawsandinotherfederalstatutes,mostnotablythoserelatingtoworksprotectedby copyright,trademarks,patentsanddesigns.Withrespecttocharactermerchandising.Section 43(a)oftheTrademarkActof1946,asamendedin1988(LanhamAct),providessignificant remediesforactsofunfaircompetitionoutsidethefederalantitrustlaws. ManyStateswithintheUnited States of Americahavetheirownunfaircompetition laws.However,Section43(a)oftheLanhamActcreatesafederalremedyformakingafalse designationoforigin,oranyfalsedescriptionorrepresentation.Inthatrespect,referenceis madetotheBonitoBoats,Inc.v.ThunderCraftBoats,Inc.casein19896ofwhichthe followingpartcanbequoted:Indeed,thereareaffirmativeindicationsfromCongressthat boththelawofunfaircompetitionandtradesecretprotectionareconsistentwiththebalance struckbythepatentlaws.Section43(a)...createsafederalremedyformakingafalse designationoforigin,oranyfalsedescriptionorrepresentation,includingwordsorother symbolstendingfalselytodescribeorrepresentthesame...;Congresshasthusgivenfederal recognitiontomanyoftheconcernswhichunderliethestatetortofunfaircompetition... InthatrespecttheHirschv.S.C.Johnson&Sonscase7canbementioned.Elroy Hirsch,alsoknownasCrazyLegs,aprominentAmericanfootballplayer,appearedin severalcommercialsbothduringandafterhisfootballcareer.ThenicknameCrazyLegs appearedineachcommercial.HesuedamanufacturerwhowasusingthenameCrazyLegs forashavinggel.TheCourtsustainedHirschsclaimofinfringement,sincethenameCrazy LegswasusedtoidentifyHirschinhisbusinessoroccupation,andtheunauthorizeduseof thatnamecausedthepublictomistakenlyassumethatHirschhadapprovedoforsponsored themanufacturersgoods. Section43(a)isnottobeconfusedwithSection32,whichprovidesacauseofaction basedoninfringementofaregisteredtrademark.Section43(a)isbroaderinscope, contemplatingcausesofactionnotnecessarilybeingbasedonatrademarkregistrationinthe UnitedStatesofAmerica.Asanexample,theSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesof Americarecentlymadeclear,intheTwoPesos,Inc.v.TacoCabana,Inc.case,8that infringementofeitherunregisteredtrademarksortradedresscreatesacauseofactionunder Section43(a)andthatsuchmarksortradedressshouldreceiveessentiallythesame protectionasthosethatareregistered. TheSupremeCourtintheTwoPesoscasementionedintheprecedingparagraph approvedtheapplicationofestablishedtrademarklawanalysisintheUnitedStatesof Americatotheareasoftradedressandunregisteredmarks.Intheareaofcharacter merchandisingthen,likelihoodofconfusionastosource(likelihoodofconfusion)and secondarymeaningarequiterelevant. 4. Specificunfaircompetitionlaws

6 7 8

489U.S.141,103L.Ed.2d118,109.S.Ct.971,9USPQ2d1847,1858(1989). Hirschv.S.C.Johnson&Sons,90Wis.2d379,280H.W.2d129(1979). 112S.Ct.2753,23USPQ2d1081(1992).

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page23

OneofthefirstcountrieswhichcodifiedthesubjectofunfaircompetitionwasGermany withthe1909ActAgainstUnfairCompetitionwhich,althoughamended,stillgovernsthe mattertoday.ThisActischaracterizedbytwogeneralclauses,thefirstaccordingtowhich allactscontrarytohonestpracticesgiverisetorelief,andthesecondprohibitingmisleading advertising.Thosegeneralclausesaresupplementedbyanumberofspecificrulesrelatingto particularactsofunfaircompetition.Inthecontextofmerchandising,thefirstgeneralclause isrelevantinpartsinceitmayrelatetopracticessuchasunfairproductcopying,creationof confusionwithregardtocompetitorsandimitationofadvertisingcampaigns;thesecond generalclauseisalsorelevantinpartsinceitmayconcernmisleadingactsoncommercial originsuchasthecreationofconfusioninthemarketplaceontheoriginofgoodsorservices. Itshouldfurthermorebenotedthatunfaircompetitionlawmaybeavailabletoprovide, insomecases,extendedprotectiontoworksorelementsalreadyprotectedbyanintellectual propertyright(forexample,toextendthescopeofsimilarityofgoodsorservices)andto provideprotectionforworksorelementswhicharenotindependentlyprotectedasintellectual propertyrights.However,intheformercase,itshouldbeconsideredasanexceptionsince thegeneralclausecontainedinArticle1oftheActisnotintendedtoconferadditional exclusiverightsalreadyaffordedunderintellectualproperty.Inthelattercase,whenasign, characterornamedoesnotenjoyspecificindependentprotection,itsuseisnormallyfree unlessitisconsideredunfairordishonest. Anactwillbeconsideredcontrarytohonestpracticewhereadefendanttakesadvantage ofthesuccessachievedbytheownerofasignorcreatorofaworkfollowingfinancial investmentandadvertising.Thepotentialinfringerappropriatesanotherssuccessand impedesthelicensingactivitiesoftherightfulowner,evenifthelatterdoesnotenjoy trademarkrightsorcopyright.Forexample,thebeneficiariesoftheFrenchappellationof originChampagnewereabletoenjointheuseinadvertisingofsloganssuchasPerrier-as elegantasChampagneorPerrier-theChampagneofmineralwatersbytheGerman importerofthemineralwaterPerrier.Itwasconsideredthatthedefendanthadunfairly exploitedareputation.Thisdecisionshowsthereforetheimportanceofthenotionof reputationand,inthecontextofmerchandising,theexploitationofthepopularityofa characterwillnotbeconsideredunfairwherethecharacterisnotalreadyconsideredaswell known. Anotherimportantpointisthat,inprinciple,acommonfieldofactivitybetweenthe partiesinvolvedisrequired.However,thecourtsrecognizethatthepossibilityofexploitinga characterbywayofmerchandisingcreatesacompetitiverelationshipbetweentheownerof therightsinthecharacterandtheunauthorizeduseriftheownerintendstomerchandisethe characterhimself.Acommonfieldofactivitywillexistwheneverthecommercial exploitationofthereputationofasignorcharactercanreasonablybeexpected. ThisprinciplecanbeillustratedintheBambicase(I960).9Thedefendantwasa chocolatemanufacturerwhohadregisteredthetrademarkBambiatatimewherethe fictionalanimalcharacterwasalreadypopularthroughtheWaltDisneyfilmentitled Bambi.Whentheplaintiff,WaltDisneyInc.,licensedinGermanytheuseoftheimageof Bambitoanotherchocolateproducer,thedefendantinvokedhistrademarktorestraintheuse oftheimageofBambibytheauthorizedlicensee.Theplaintiffsucceededinobtainingan

BGHGrur1960,144.

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page24

injunctiononthebasisthattheregistrationBambiasatrademarkwasunfairsinceitnot onlyexploitedthepopularityofthecharactercreatedbytheplaintiff,butalsopreventedthe latterfromexploitingcopyrightinthefigurebywayoflicensingtherepresentationofBambi throughproductpromotion(atleastinrespectofconfectionery).Itwasthereforeconsidered thattheuseofthefigurewouldhavebeenassociatedbythepublicwiththenameBambi registeredasatrademark,andwouldconsequentlyhavebeenconfusing.Finally,itcanbe saidthatthemisappropriationtheoryisalsorelevanttothiscase. Itshouldfurthermorebenotedthatunfaircompetitionlawmayalsobeavailableifthe useofacharacterasaproductendorsementfalselyimpliesabusinessconnectionbetweenthe businessoftheplaintiffandthegoodsofthedefendant.Inthatcase,thepublicmayexpect thegoods,whichitassociateswiththebusinessoftheplaintiff,tobeofacertainquality whichtheyinfactdonothave. Asregardstitles(includingthenameofacharacterandeveninthecaseofasingle printedwork),protectionunderunfaircompetitionlawwillbeavailableifthetitlesare distinctiveandiftheunauthorizedusegivestheconfusingimpressionthattheownerofthe workmighthaveapprovedit.Forexample,theauthorofabookcouldenjoinafilmcompany fromusingthetitleofthebookforafilminnowayrelatedtothebookifthepublicmightbe ledtobelievethatthefilmwasanadaptationofthecontentofthebook. Anumberofcountries,suchasJapan,havealsoenactedspecificunfaircompetition laws.TheUnfairCompetitionPreventionAct1934containsalistofspecificprohibited practicesbutnogeneralclauses.Inthecontextofmerchandising,themostrelevant prohibitedpracticesarethosewhichleadtoconfusionconcerninggoodsandbusinessaswell asfalserepresentationconcerningtheplaceoforigin.TheimportantfeatureoftheActisthat itprohibitstheuseofaname,symbol,tradenameortrademarkofanotherwhichislikelyto causeconfusionastothesourceofgoods,abusinessestablishmentoractivities.Therefore, boththeownerofthecopyrightinafictionalcharacterandhislicenseecanseekremedies againstpersonshavingmisappropriatedthecharacterfortheirgoodsorbusinessifevidence ofconfusion(orthreatofconfusion)isshown.Confusionwillexistwhenthereisa misrepresentationofthebusinessesoftheplaintiffanddefendantasbeingthesame,orof therebeingarelationshipbetweentheparties. However,thereisalsoinJapantheimportantconditionthatthecharacterbewell known.Inpractice,theActwillthereforerarelybeavailableinthecaseofnewcharactersor charactersrecentlyoriginatingfromoutsideJapan.ThiscanbeillustratedbytheKKPoppy v.KKNakiShotenEtalcase(1976),whereacompanyhadproducedatelevisionseries entitledKamenRiderwithhumancharactersnamedKamenRiderandKamenRider V3.Theplaintiffhadtransferredtheexploitationrights(includingmerchandisingofthe KamenRidercharacters)toacompanywhich,initsturn,licensedthemanufactureof KamenRiderplasticdollstoanothercompany.Allthosecompaniessoughttoenjointhe useoftheKamenRidercharactersbymanyunauthorizedusers.Thecourtconsideredthat therewasnocaseforunfaircompetition,sincethecharactersinvolvedwerenotyet sufficientlywellknowntobeindividuallyidentified.

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page25

OtherFormsofProtection 1. Protectionagainstdefamationorlibel

IntheUnited States of America,apublicfiguremaybringanactionfordefamationonly ifthedefendanthadknowledgethatthestatementhewasmakingwasfalseandthatit defamedthepublicfigure. InCanada,therecognitionofthetortrequiresafalsehoodandadepreciationofthe valueorworthoftheplaintiffintheeyesofthepublic(whethertheplaintiffisapublicfigure oranordinarycitizen). IntheUnited Kingdom,theuseofapersonsnameorappearancewithoutauthorization maynotbethebasisofadefamationactionunlesssomespecific,recognizedformofinjuryis proved. TheTolleyv.Frycase10willillustratewhatisunderstoodbyinjuryinthecontextofan unauthorizeduseforcommercialpurpose.Theimageofawell-knowngolfplayerhadbeen usedtoadvertisechocolate.Theplaintiffsuedthechocolatemanufactureronthebasisofthe lawoflibelandarguedthattheadvertisementcarriedtheimplicationthatthegolferhad acceptedmoneyinreturnforagreeingtoappearintheadvertisement,whichwouldhave constitutedabreachofhisamateurstatus.Hewasthereforeabletoclaimthattheimplication wasdefamatoryforhisnameandreputation.Itisconsideredthatthespecificfactsofthis caseimplieddefamation,butthat,inprinciple,themereuseofapersonsnameorimagefor promotionalpurposesisnotassuchdefamatory.Therefore,intheUnitedKingdom,the marketingofaproductbearingthenameofawell-knownpersonalitywithouthisconsentis notdefamatoryunlesshecanshowthathisprofessionalreputationisdamaged.However, suchmarketingmayinsomecircumstancesbeenjoinedwithapassing-offaction.

2.

Invasionofprivacy

InFrance,aspecificprovisionexiststoreinforcepersonalityrights,namelyArticle368 oftheCriminalCode,whichprovidesthatthevoluntaryinvasionofathirdpersonsprivacy constitutesacriminaloffense(subjecttofinesorimprisonment).Theoffenseiscommitted bylisteningto,recordingortransmittingwordswhicharespokeninprivatewithoutthe consentofthepersonsconcerned,andbyprintingortransmittingthephotographofsucha person.Thisprovisioncouldprobablybeusedagainstmagazineswhichpublishthecontents ofcelebritiesprivateconversationsheldduringaneventwhichhasbeenfilmedandwhere thecontentsoftheconversationareobtainedwiththehelpoflipreaders. InJapan,therightofprivacyisbasedonthenotionthatpeoplesufferharmwhentheir namesareabusedortheirportraitsareshownbyothers;thisrightsafeguardsthemoral interestthatanindividualhasinhisorhernameandimage.Itshouldhoweverbenotedthat thescopeoftheprotectionaffordedundertherightofprivacywillbereducedwhenit concernsindividualswhoareinthepubliceye(politicians,actors,musicians),sinceitis consideredthatthosepersonshavegivenablanketlicensefortheirnamesorimagestobe
10

1931.AC333.

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page26

usedinthepublicdomain. IntheUnited States of America,thesamelimitationofthescopeoftherightofprivacy exists,inthecaseofcelebrities,wherethosepersonscannotrelyoninvasionofprivacy(or therighttobeleftalone)tocontroltheirmerchandisingrights.Interestingly,bothinJapan andintheUnitedStatesofAmerica,anotherrighthasdeveloped,knownastherightof publicity(seedevelopments,below),whichguardsagainstcommercialinjurycausedby deprivingthecelebrityofthefinancialbenefitsoftheexploitationofhisorhernameor image. InChile,thelawofprivacyprovidesforarighttorespectforthepublicandprivatelife ofanindividual.However,forpersonsenteringthepublicdomain,protectionisonlygranted overfeatureswhicharenotalreadyfreelyavailableinthesaidpublicdomain.Furthermore, aswillbeseen,thecourtshavealsoreducedthepossibilityforcelebritiestocontroland preventunauthorizedcommercialuseoftheirattributes. Itisconsideredthatmostcommon-lawcountrieshavenolawonprivacyprotectionas suchand,inprinciple,nopropertyrightisrecognizedinaname. IntheUnited Kingdom,therearesomelegalmeansofprotectingprivacy(forexample, breachoffaithinthecaseofacontractbetweenapersonportrayedinaphotographandthe photographerwhousesprintsofthephotographforadvertisingpurposes). InAustralia,abill(theUnfairPublicationBill)whichfollowedtheAustralianLaw ReformCommissionReport(UnfairPublication:DefamationandPrivacy)hasbeen introduced(seedevelopments,below). InCanada,whileseveralprovincesrecognizethetortofappropriationofpersonality (seedevelopments,below),onlyfourprovinces(BritishColumbia,Saskatchewan,Manitoba andNewfoundland)haveenactedprivacylaws.ThelawofBritishColumbia,initsSection 3(1),makesitanactionabletorttoviolatetheprivacyofaperson,includingtheuseofthe nameorportrait ofanother,withoutconsent,withintenttoexploitthenameorimageofthat personinadvertisingorpromotion(unlesstheuseismerelyforthepurposeofreporting currentaffairs).Fortheotherthreeprovinces,thepersonwhosenameorportraitisusedmust beidentifiedoridentifiable,andthereshouldbeaclearintentiontoexploitthepersonalityof anotherwithoutconsent.Therearehoweverseverallimitations,sincetherightsarerestricted tolivingpersonsandarepersonal(nottransferableorlicensable).Ingeneral,celebritieswill probablyprefertorelyonthecommon-lawtortofappropriationofpersonality.

3.

Personalityandpublicityrights

Thecountriescan,inthisrespect,bedividedintotwocategories:countrieswhere personalityrightsassucharerecognizedintheConstitutionorCivilCodeorbywayof specialstatutesrelatingtotheappropriationofpersonality(suchasChile,France,Germany, AustraliaandCanada)andcountrieswhichhavedevelopedaspecificrightofpublicity(such asJapanandtheUnited States of America).

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page27

Althoughthesubjectmatterandthescopeofprotectionvaryineachcountry,the generalprotectionwhichisavailable(whetherthroughpersonalityorpublicityrights) amountstoenablingpersonstocontrolthecommercialuseoftheiressentialpersonality attributes(name,image,voice,etc.).

(a)

Personalityrights

InChile,theCivilCodeandtheBillofRightsoftheConstitutionprotectthepersonal attributesofrealpersonsduringtheirlifetime.Thoseprovisionshavebeenrestrictively interpretedbythecourtswhichconsiderthatpersonalityrightsshouldnotbeconsideredas propertyrights.Thoseprovisions,ifusefultoprotectprivacy,arelessrelevantinrespectof thecommercialuseofpersonalityattributes.Forexample,in1982,ateamoffamous footballers,relyinguponthepersonalattributerights,failedtopreventtheunauthorizeduseof theirimage.Itwasconsideredthatthefactthattheplaintiffswereinthepubliceyemeant thattheyhadnorightofactionagainstsuchuse(unlessthroughprivacyrightsor,ifavailable, intellectualpropertylaws).Ethically,thecourtconsideredthatthenotionofmerchandisinga personsnameandimagecheapenedtherightsprovidedforintheConstitution,andthatsuch apracticeshouldnotbeencouraged. InFrance,personalityrightsarebasedonthegeneralprinciplecontainedinArticle9of theCivilCode,whichprovidesthateveryonehasarighttorespectforhisprivatelife.This rightsurvivesthedeathofapersonasregardsrespectforhisorhermemory.Thecourtshave definedthefeaturesofpersonalityasincludingthename,voice,imageandlikeness,which maynot,withoutconsent,bethesubjectofcommercialexploitation.Personalityrightsmay beinvokedevenwhereconsenthasbeengiven,buttheusegoesbeyondwhathasbeen authorized.Furthermore,thescopeofprotectionextendstoindirectusebymeansoflook alikesorcaricatures. Severalexampleswillillustratethescopeofprotectionaffordedunderpersonality rights:asregardspoliticians,PresidentGeorgesPompidouwas bletopreventtheuseofhis a imagefortheadvertisingofanengineforaboat;PresidentValeryGiscarddEstaingwas abletopreventtheuseofthenameGiscarteandtheuseofhisimage(caricaturedasfamous historicalpersons)forasetofcardgames.Asregardsanordinarycitizen,afarmer,whohad authorizedthepublicationofhisphotographforastudyonFrenchfamilies,wasawarded damagesfortheuse,withouthisconsent,ofthesamephotographonaposterbyapolitical party.Asregardsthelikenessofanactor,GerardDepardieuwasawardeddamagesforthe moralprejudicehehadsufferedbecauseoftheuse,withouthisconsent,ofalook-alikeinan advertisementforchocolate.Thecourtindicatedthatthepubliccouldhavebelievedthatthe actorhadgivenhisconsentforhisimagetobeassociatedwithchocolateandthathehad receivedremunerationforsuchanadvertisement.Asregardsthevoiceofaperson,anactor, whohadaverydistinctiveandrecognizablevoice,obtaineddamagesbecauseofthe advertisingofaproductwithavoicewhichimitatedhisownvoice.Finally,asregardsthe exploitationoftheimageofasportsman,aphotographagencyhadsoldphotographsof professionalfootballplayerstoanadvertisingagency.Oneofthosephotographs,wherea particularfootballerwasrecognizable,wasusedinadvertisingwithouttheconsentofthe latter.Thecourtconsideredthattherewasnobreachofthemoralrightstheplaintiffhadin hisimage,sincethephotographshadbeentakeninpublicsurroundingswhiletheplaintiff wasexercisinghisprofessionalactivity.However,sincetherewasnoconsentfromthe plaintifftotheadvertisinguseofhisimage,hecouldclaimabreachofhiseconomicrights

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page28

andbeentitledtoanindemnity. Afinalquestionrelatestothecommercialexploitationoftheessentialattributesofa deceasedperson.Inarecentdecision(ClaudeFranoiscase,AppealCourtofParis, June 7, 1983),thecourtclearlystatedthatwhiletheheirswereentitledtoprotectthememory andhonorofadeceasedcelebrity,theywerenotentitledtotransfertoathirdpersontheright tocommerciallyexploittheimageofthedeceasedperson,sincetherighttoapersonsimage wasanattributeofhisorherpersonalityandnotaneconomicright. InGermany,thegeneralpersonalityrightiscontainedintheCivilCode,andhasbeen definedastheexclusiverightoftheindividualtoberespectedasahumanbeingbytheState aswellasbyothermembersofsociety.Arealpersonisprotectedagainstthemisuseofhis name,picture,image,likenessorvoicethroughexclusivepersonalityrights,someofwhich (name,imageandportrait)havebeengivenspecialtreatment. Withrespecttotherighttothename,theprincipleisthatthelawfulownerofaname canprohibitmisappropriationofhisorhernamebyanunauthorizeduser(irrespective, accordingtoabroadinterpretationbythecourts,ofwhetherthenameisprivateor commercial).Thenotionofnamecoversstagenames,pseudonymsandanyother distinctivedesignation,signoremblemwhichisinherentlydistinctiveorhasacquired distinctivenessthroughitsuse.Theprotectionrelatestotheillicitcommercialexploitationof thename.However,itshouldbenotedthat,insomeinstances,thegeneralpersonalityright mayprovideforbroaderprotectionthantherighttoaname(forexample,whenan advertisementmerelystatesthatpersonXusesproductY). Asregardstherightinrespectoftheimageorportraitofaperson,itshouldbebalanced withthepublicsrighttoinformation(whichdoesnotextendtoprivate,commercialor advertisingpurposesorusecontrarytothelegitimateinterestoftheperson).Inprinciple,the imageandportraitcanonlybedistributedorpubliclyexhibitedwiththeconsentoftheperson and,duringaperiodof10yearsfollowingthedeathoftheperson,withtheconsentofthe next-of-kinofthedeceased. Asforthegeneralpersonalityright,itconstitutesanabsoluteindividualrightandis thereforeprotectedbythelawoftortsandbyArticle823(1)oftheCivilCode,which stipulatesthatanyonewhonegligentlyviolatesanexclusiveindividualrightisliablefor damages.However,herealsothepublichasarighttoinformation.Inpractice,thegeneral personalityrighthasbeensuccessfullyinvokedagainsttheunauthorizeduseofaname,areal voiceoranimitationofavoiceinadvertisements.Itshouldfurtherbenotedthatthisright survivesalsoafterthedeathofthepersonconcerned.Finally,ifpersonalityrightsarenot transferablebecausetheyaretiedtoanindividual,thelattermaywaivetheassertionofhis rightsandgivehisconsenttotheuseofhispersonalityfeatures. Inothercountries,theviolationofapersonalityrightconstitutesthetortof appropriationofpersonality. InAustralia,theUnfairPublicationsBillcontainsclauseswhichcouldamountto misappropriationofpersonalityrightsandwhich,iftheBillbecomesalaw,couldprovetobe mostrelevantinthecontextofpersonalitymerchandising.Forexample,theproposed Section 22providesthat(1)apersonshallberegardedashavingappropriatedthename, identityorlikenessofanotherpersonifhe,withintenttoexploitforhisownbenefit,the

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page29

name,identity,reputationorlikenessofthatotherpersonandwithouttheconsentofthat otherperson,publishesmattercontainingthename,identityorlikenessofthatotherperson (a)inadvertisingorpromotingthesale,leasingoruseofpropertyorthesupplyofservices; ...InthisrespecttheBillalsocontainsalimitationrelatingtothepublicationofmere informationorcommentsonaperson. InCanada,itisconsideredthatcommonlawcontemplatesaconceptinthelawoftort whichmaybebroadlyclassifiedasappropriationofonespersonality.Thistortwas recognizedintheProvinceofOntariointheAthansv.CanadianAdventureCampsCase (1977),andlaterintheprovinceofBritishColumbia.Personalitywillbeconsidered appropriatediftheplaintiffcanestablishthatthepublicislikelytoidentifyhimandthatthe usurpationorculpabletakingofhisidentityistantamounttotheexploitationbythedefendant ofthecelebritysreputation(bysuggestingthecelebritysendorsementoftheproduct concerned).Oneoftheaspectsofthistortwouldbetheunauthorizedcommercialuseofthe representationalimageofaperson.However,itshouldbenotedthattwoquestionsremainto beanswered:first,theavailabilityofthetortafterthepersonalityhasdeceasedand,second, itsavailabilitytoanordinarycitizen. TheonlyprovinceinCanadawhereacompletepersonalityright(probablyevenbroader thaninFranceorGermany)isavailableisQuebecwhichrecognizesaproprietaryrightina personalitylimitedtorightshavinganeconomicvalue.Italsorecognizesmoralrights (protectionofapersonshonor,dignityandreputation)whichareavailablealsotoordinary citizensandwhichmay,atleastasregardsthenameofawell-knownperson,beprotected afterhisdeath. AnexampleoftheapplicationofthisrightistheDeschampsv.RenaultCanadacase,11 whereaninjunctionwasgrantedtotwowell-knownentertainerstorestrainthedefendant fromusingtheirphotographsinassociationwithaRenaultcar.Thereasoninggivesavery clearindicationinrespectofthebroadprotectionofpersonalitymerchandising,sinceit providesthat...thenamesandlikenessesofpetitionersinvolvepropertyrightswhichtheyare freetoexploitcommerciallyortorefrainfromdoingsoandequallyfreetodecidethe conditionsunderwhichsuchexploitationshalltakeplace...itisclearfromtheevidencethat theirnamesandlikenesshavearealcommercialvaluecapableofbeingtranslatedintomoney terms.Specificproofwasmadeastotheremunerationpaidtothepetitionersfortheir publicityservicesbyvariousdistributorsofcommercialproductsandservices.Moreover,in thisdayandage,itwouldbehardforanycourtnottotakejudicialnoticeofhowcommonit isforfilmstarsandotherpublicfigurestolendtheirnamesandtalenttocommercial promotion....Nowiftherightofcommercialexploitationofafilmstarsnameandimageis apropertyright,arealrightinpropertywhichiscapableofyieldingafinancialreturn,thenit cannotbeappropriatedorusedbyanyonewithouttheconsentofitsowner.

(b)

Rightofpublicity

ThisrightdevelopedintheUnited States of America,sinceitwasconsideredthatthe commercialexploitation,withoutconsent,ofacelebrityspersonalityfeaturescouldnot amounttotheinvasionofprivacy,becauseitinvolvedneitherintrusionnorpublicdisclosure

11

(1977)18CdeD937(MtlSC

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page30

normisuseofconfidentialinformation.Somejurisdictionsthereforerecognizeaproperty rightinthenameorlikenessbasedontheviewthatunauthorizeduseofthosefeatures violatedtherighttotheircommercialexploitation.Itisimportanttonotethattherightof publicitytortisavailableinthecaseofpersonalitymerchandising(whetherthepersonwhose attributesareadvertisedorpromotedisacelebrityornot)ifthepersonisrealandstill recognizableandalsointhecaseofimagemerchandisingwheretheaudiovisualcharacteris stroglyassociatedwiththeactorhimself. n ThelegaloriginoftherightofpublicitycanprobablybefoundintheHaelen LaboratoriesInc.v.ToppsChewingGumcase,12whichrecognizedapropertyrightinthe exploitationofacelebritysimagetoachewinggumproducertowhomabaseballplayerhad grantedtheexclusiverighttousehisphotograph,andwhowasabletopreventtheuseofthe sameplayersimagebyacompetitor. Theprotectionaffordedundertherightofpublicitycanextendto distinctivetheatrical presentationsincludingdistinctivevoices(Lahrv.AdellChemicalCo.13),distinctiveliterary characterizations(LoneRanger,Inc.v.Cox14),aswellastocelebritylook-alikes(J.Onassis v.ChristianDiorcasein1984)andrepresentationaldrawingsofcelebrities(MuhammadAli v.Playgirlcasein1978). Anotherproblemrelatestothesurvivalofthecelebritysrightofpublicityafterhis deathinrelationtothefurthercommercialexploitationofhispersonalityfeatures.Mostcourt decisionsendorsetheinheritabilityoftherightofpublicity,buttheexclusiverightofan heirwillusuallydependonwhetherthecelebrityhadexerciseditduringhislifetime.For example,intheBelaLugosiv.UniversalPicturescase,15thecourtheldthatLugosisheirs werenotentitledtoshareintheincomederivedfromlicensingtheCountDraculacharacter (asplayedbyLugosi),sinceLugosiinhislifetimehadneverusedhisnameorlikenessas CountDraculainrelationtoanybusiness,productorservice.IntheGrouchoMarx ProductionInc.v.DayandNightCompanycase,16inafirstinstance,itwasheldthatthe BroadwaymusicalAdayinHollywood,AnightinUkrainesimulated(byuseoflook alikes)theuniqueappearance,styleandmannerismsoftheMarxBrothers,andtherefore violatedtheirrightsofpublicity,thisdecisionbeingreversedonappeal,sinceitwas consideredthattheproducersofthemusicalhadnotexploitedtheimageoftheMarxBrothers ongoodsorserviceswhichhadbeenexploitedbytheMarxBrothersduringtheirlifetime. Manystateshaveenactedastatutoryrightofpublicityand/orprivacy,whichsometimes overrulessomeofthedecisionstakenbythecourts.Forexample,theCaliforniaCivilCode providesfordamagesfortheunauthorizedknowinguseofanothersname,voice,signature, photograph(wherethepersonisreadilyidentifiable)orlikeness,inanymanner,onorin products,merchandiseorgoods,orforpurposesofadvertisingorselling,orsoliciting purchasesof,products,merchandise,goodsorservices,withoutthepersonspriorconsent.It appearsthatthisstatutewillprobablynotprotectagainsttheuseoflook-alikes(see,however, theMilderv.FordMotorCo.case17whichestablishescommercialtortwithrespecttotheuse
12 13 14 15 16 17

(1953)202F.2d866(2dCir.),cert.denied,346U.S.816. 300F.2d256,132USPQ662(1stCir.1961). 124F.2d650,52USPQ146(4thCir.1942). (1979)25Cal.Sd813,160Cal.Rptr.,603P.2d425. SDNY1981)523F.Supp.485;(2dCir.1982)689F.2d317. 849F.2d460(9thCir.1988).

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page31

ofacelebritysound-alike).Thestatutefurthercodifiesthetransmissibilityoftherightafter thedeathoftheperson.Californiaprovidesacommon-lawrightofpublicityforareasnot coveredbytherelevantstatute.TheNewYorkCivilRightsLaw,inSections50and51,is narrowerinscopesinceitrelatesonlytothename,portraitorpictureofanindividualand courtshavestrictlyconstruedthoseprovisionswhichdonotapplytoimitationsofa celebritysstyleofperformanceorpersonality. InJapan,therightofpublicityhasalsobeenrecognized.Itaimstoprotectthe economicorcommercialinterestofpublicfigures(whichtherefore,apparentlymakesit narrowerinscopethanintheUnitedStatesofAmerica)intheirmainpersonalityfeatures. Thisrightwasfirstrecognizedbythecourts(MarkLesterv.TokyoDaichiFilmcasein1976 wheretheimageandnameofanactorwereused,withouthisconsent,onadvertisements).

Remedies 1. Injunction

Withrespecttobothapreliminaryorfinalinjunction,itmayinsomecountries(suchas Germany)beenforceablewiththemandatorypaymentofapenaltyfeefornotobeyingthe courtorder,whichbecomespayablewithoutfurtherinterventionbythecourt.Inother countries(suchas rance ),acourtmaydecideatthesametimethatthecontinued F perpetrationofaninfringingactshouldbeprohibited(notwithstandingthesimultaneous paymentofdamages,whethersymbolicornot),andthat,iftheactcontinuesasfromafixed date,adailypenaltyfeewillhavetobepaidtotheplaintiff.Finally,inothercountries(for example,Australia,India,theUnited KingdomandtheUnited States of America),thefailure tomeetacourtordermayconstituteacivilorpossiblycriminalcontemptofcourt.

2.

Damages

InAustralia,ithasbeenconsideredthattheplaintiffisnotrequiredtopointtoa particularloss,toquantifyadiminutioninlicenseroyaltiesortodemonstratethathecouldnot negotiatealicenseonsuchfavorabletermsasheotherwisemight.Themerepresenceof unlicensedgoodsonthesamemarketastheplaintiffs,andthedeceptionastotheir authenticity,leadproperlytoaninterference,sothattheplaintiffsbusinessisboundtobe adverselyaffectedinsomeway. IntheUnited Kingdom,bothininfringementandpassing-offactions,theplaintiffcan claim,insteadofactualdamage,anaccountoftheprofitsgainedbythedefendantonthe groundofunjustenrichment. InGermany,theprincipleofthepaymentofafictitiouslicensefeewasappliedinthe FamilieScholermanncasein1960,wherestillsfromatelevisionseriesshowingthemain actors,whowerewellknownastheScholermannfamily,wereusedwithouttheirconsent byatelevisionsetmanufacturerforhisadvertisingmaterial.

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page32

RequirementsinRespectofAgreements 1. Trademarks (a) Assignmentsandtransfers

Thelawsofmostcountriesprovidethatatrademarkregistrationcanbetransferredor assignedwithorwithoutthegoodwillofthebusinessconcernedwiththegoodsorservices forwhichtheregistrationhasbeenmade.Severalexceptionsshouldhoweverbenoted: InGermany,underthepresenttrademarklaw,assignmentisonlypossibletogetherwith thebusinessorpartofthebusinesstowhichthetrademarkrelates. IntheUnited States of America,thetrademarkisassignableinconnectionwiththe goodwillofthebusinessinwhichthetrademarkisusedorwiththatpartofthegoodwillof thebusinessconnectedwiththeuseofandsymbolizedbythetrademark. Furthermore,evenincountrieswhichprovideforso-calledfreetransfer,some limitationsexistwhentheassignmentismadewithoutthegoodwill. InAustralia,theassignmentmaybeinvalidatedifthetrademarkisnotusedaftera certainperiodfollowingtheassignment,orifitisidenticalorverysimilartoatrademarkstill inthehandsoftheassignor(andthereforenotassociatedwiththeassignedtrademark)and stillusedbyhim. Mostcountriesprovidethat,tobeeffectiveorbindingonthirdparties(inthe United States of America,tobevalidagainstasubsequentpurchaserwithoutnoticeand,in India,tobeinprincipleadmittedinthecourtasaproofofthetitletothetrademark),an assignmentcontract,whichshouldbeinwriting,shouldberegistered(orrecorded)inthe relevantregisterkeptbythecompetentauthority. Somecountries,forexample,Germany,providethat,toberegistered,theassignment deedshould,ifappropriate,beauthenticatedbyanotarypublicandlegalized.

(b)

Licensingagreements

Asregardslicensingagreements(orapplicationsforregisteredusersinCommonwealth countries),itisusuallyprovidedthatsuchagreementsmayberegisteredorrecordedsubject toconditionswhicharesimilartothoseapplicabletotransfersandassignments. Germany,however,hasnoprovisionrelatingtolicenseagreements.Itisconsidered thatalicensedoesnotconferabsoluterightsonthelicenseesincetheagreementisvalidonly inter partes.Therefore,alicenseeisnotinapositiontoexclude,independently,thirdparties fromanunauthorizeduse. Inothercountries(forexample,France,JapanandtheUnited Kingdom)anexclusive licenseemay,independently,bringaninfringementactiononlyifthelicenseagreementis registeredorrecorded.

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page33

Asregardsthecontentsofalicenseagreement(andmainlywithrespecttotheregistered usersystem),somecontrolmaybeexercisedbythecompetentauthority.Forexample,in India,theholderofthetrademarkshouldhavereasonablecontrolovertheuseofthe trademark;inAustralia,theholdershouldfurnishastatutorydeclarationindicatingthe relationshipbetweenthepartiesinvolved,thedegreeofcontrolovertheuseofthetrademark, thegoodsorservicescovered,etc.

2.

Industrialdesigns

Inmostcountriesthetransfer,assignmentandlicensingofregisteredindustrialdesigns ispossible.Theregistrationorrecordingoftheagreementisgenerallymorerestrictedthanin thecaseoftrademarksbecauseinsomecountriestheprovisionsondesignsrefertothose applicabletopatents. InIndiaanassignmentwillonlybevalidifitregisteredwithinaperiodofsixmonthsin defaultofwhichtheassignmentwillbeconsideredvoidabinitio.

3.

Literaryandartisticworks(Copyright)

Agreementssuchasassignmentsorlicensesmayonlyrelatetotheeconomicor exploitationrights,whiletheauthoroftheworkretainshismoralrights.Itshouldhoweverbe notedthat,insomecountries(suchasFrance),thecourtsmayinsomewayslimitthosemoral rightssoastoavoidtheirunjustifiedexercisebytheauthorbeingdetrimentaltothe necessitiesofindustrialmanufacturingandmarketingandcontrarytotheobligationassumed bytheauthorinthelicensethathegaveforthemerchandisingofacharacter. ThiscanbeillustratedbytheColargolcase,18wheretheauthorshadassignedtheir economicrightsandwerecomplainingaboutthegoods(yoghurtandmustardpots,etc.) reproducingtheircharacter(abear),theinferiorityofwhichwasprejudicialtothecharacter. Thecourtconsideredthatsuchgoods,appreciatedbychildren,werenotprejudicialtothe characterandthattheauthorcouldnotthereforeinvokehismoralrights. Thequestionoftheregistrationorrecordingofagreementsrelatingtocopyrightis closelyrelatedtothequestionoftheregistrationoftheworkitself. Somecopyrightlawsaresilentontheregistrationorrecordingofagreements(Australia, Germany, NigeriaandtheUnited Kingdom);othersprovidethatagreementsmaybe registeredorrecorded(inCanada,grantsofaninterestinacopyrighteitherbyassignmentor licensewiththeeffectofprimafacieevidence,andintheUnited States of America, amplificationsofworks,mayberegistered);stillothersprovidethatsomeorall agreementsshouldberegistered(inChileanytransfer,inwholeorinpart,ofcopyrightor connectedrights,onwhateverbasis,shouldberegistered,andinFrancetheregistrationof transfersofrightsinrespectofaudiovisualworksismandatory);finally,therearecountries suchasJapanwheretheregistrationoftransfersisnotobligatory,butwheretheyshouldbe registeredtobeeffectiveagainstthirdparties.

18

AppealCourtofParis,April26,1977,RIDA131.

WO/INF/108
AnnexI,page34

Theconceptoftransferofcopyrightisnotrecognizedassuchinallcountries. InGermanycopyrightisnottransferableassuch,buttheauthormaygrantexclusiveor non-exclusivelicenses.Furthermore,theauthorisprotectedbythepurposeofgrant doctrine.Inessence,itisconsideredthatif,inalicenseagreement,thepermittedmannerof exploitationofaworkisnotfullyandexpresslystated,itisdeemedthatonlythosemodesof exploitationwhicharewithinthepurposeoftheagreementarecoveredbythelicense. InFrance,awrittencontractisnecessaryforassignmentofeconomicrights,andthat contractshouldspecifywhichrightsareassigned.Forexample,assignmentofthe reproductionrightdoesnotimplyassignmentoftheperformancerightandviceversa:the righttoperformaplaydoesnotgivetherighttopublishit.Thetotaltransferofaneconomic rightislimitedtothetypesandformsofexploitationspecifiedinthecontract;therefore,if performanceontelevisionisnotspecificallymentioneditwillnotbecoveredbythe agreement.

[AnnexIIfollows]

WO/INF/108 ANNEXII

LegislativeTexts

Country Australia

Texts CopyrightActof1968,asamendedin1986 TradeMarksAct1955,asamendedin1987 DesignsAct1906,asamendedin1981 TradePracticesAct1974,asamendedin1981 UnfairPublicationsBill CopyrightAct,asamendedin1988 TradeMarksAct1970,asamendedin1983 IndustrialDesignAct1970 QuebecCivilCodeof1866(Article1053) QuebecCharterofHumanRightsandFreedom (Articles4and5) OntarioBusinessPracticesAct,Chapter55 PrivacyActofBritishColumbia,1979(Sections1and3) PrivacyActofSaskatchewan,1978(Sections2and3) PrivacyActofManitoba,1987(Sections2and3) PrivacyActofNewfoundland,1981(Sections3and4) CompetitionAct1985(Section53) CopyrightLawof1970,asamendedin1985 LawinstitutingtheRulesApplicabletotheTitles ofIndustrialPropertyandtotheProtectionof IndustrialPropertyRightsof1991 CivilCode(Article2314) BillofRightsoftheConstitution LawofPrivacy LawofDefamation CopyrightLawof1957 CopyrightLawof1985,asamendedin1986 TrademarkLawof1991 IndustrialDesignsLawof1909asamendedin1990Civil Code(Articles9and1382) PenalCode

Canada

Chile

France

Note:Translationsofthetitlesofthelegislativetextsarenotofficial.

WO/INF/108
AnnexII,page2

Country

Texts

Germany

CopyrightLawof1965,asamendedin1985 TrademarkLawof1968,asamendedin1979 DesignsLawof1876,asamendedin1986 UnfairCompetitionLawof1909asamended CivilCode CopyrightStatuteof1957asamendedin1984 TradeandMerchandiseMarksAct,1958 TheDesignAct1911asamendedin1970 TheMonopoliesandRestrictiveTradePracticesAct of1969,asamendedin1985 PreventionofImproperUseAct1950 CopyrightLawof1970,asamendedin1991 TrademarkLawof1959,asamendedin1987 DesignLawof1959,asamendedin1987 UnfairCompetitionLawof1934,asamendedin1975 CopyrightDecreeof1988 TradeMarksActof1965 PatentsandDesignsDecreeof1970 Copyright,DesignsandPatentsActof1988 TradeMarksActof1938,asamendedin1986and1988 TheTradeMarksAct,1994 TheRegisteredDesignsAct,1949,asamendedin1988 TheTradeDescriptionsAct1968(Section3(4)) TheCodeofLawsoftheUnitedStates: Title17,Copyright,asamendedin1991; Title15,Trademarks,asamendedin1988; Title35,Sections171to173,Designs. FederalTradeCommissionActof1914,asamended PrivacyStatutesofCaliforniaandNewYork

India

Japan

Nigeria

United Kingdom

UnitedStatesof America

WO/INF/108
AnnexII,page3

Regional Legislation

Texts

European Communities

CouncilRegulation(EC)ofDecember20,1993onthe Communitytrademark FirstCouncilDirectivetoApproximatetheLawsof theMemberStatesRelatingtoTradeMarks,1988.

[EndofAnnexIIandofdocument]