INTA
Bulletin
The Voice of the International Trademark Association
October 1, 2003 Vol. 58, No. 18
Bulgarian Seminar Focuses on Trademark
Law, Office Practices and the CTM
On September 2, 2003, the International
Trademark Association (INTA), in cooperation
with the Bulgarian Patent Office and the
Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry,
held a one-day government seminar in Sofia at
the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce.
INTA organized the seminar in the framework of its policy development in Eastern
Europe, especially in light of Bulgaria’s 2008
accession into the EU, its geopolitical position in
Europe and the Bulgarian Patent and Trademark
Office’s interest in an educational seminar on
trademark law. During the past year, INTA’s
Eastern Europe/CIS Subcommittee, chaired by
Janet Hoffman (Fross Zelnick Lehrman &
Zissu, P.C., New York, New York, USA), developed a program to fit the interests of Eastern
European patent and trademark offices. This
program was inspired by INTA’s contacts in the
region and the specific questions posed by the
IN THIS ISSUE
2
Law and Practice
Angola
Approval of Paris Convention and
Patent Cooperation Treaty
Israel
Israel Prepares to Join the Madrid
Protocol
New Zealand
Commencement of New Trade
Marks Act in New Zealand
Elena Bojinova, Chehrazade Chemcham and
Tsomba Taushanova, president of the Bulgarian
Patent & Trademark Office, at the roundtable
Turkey
Turkish Court of Appeals Allows
Slogans to be Registered as
Bulgarian Patent and Trademark Office relating
to trademark law, office practices and the
Community Trade Mark (CTM).
Elena Bojinova (Bojinov and Bojinov Ltd.
Patent, Trademark & Law Offices, Sofia,
Bulgaria) served as chair for the seminar. The
first session, chaired by Nicolai Von Fuener (Von
Fuener Ebbinghaus Finck, Munich, Germany),
covered trademark examination,
absolute and relative grounds for
Burkhart Goebel, Petter Rindforth, Gerhard Bauer and Achim Bender
refusal, and domain names.
Achim Bender, member of the
Third Board of Appeal of
OHIM, discussed OHIM
SEE
BULGARIAN SEMINAR PAGE 5
Trademarks
Ukraine
New Fees
6
World Update
Stepped-Up IPR Enforcement by the
Police in Singapore
IT Coalition to Combat
Counterfeiting in India
7
In the News
Fair and Balanced
They Call Me “Mr. Ray”
Linking the CTM and the Madrid Protocol
The Madrid Protocol (the “Protocol”) was adopted in June 1989 to introduce new features into
the international trademark registration system
that existed under the Madrid Agreement at that
time. One of the most important new features
was that intergovernmental organizations with
their own regional trademark registration systems
could become parties to the Protocol.
The Community Trade Mark (CTM) system
became operational on the same day as the
Protocol, April 1, 1996, and a link between the
two was considered long before the CTM system
began. Seven years later, an agreement seems to
have been reached between the Member States of
the European Union that would allow the
European Community (through the CTM system) to join the Protocol.
On June 12, 2003, the European Commission
stated in its Presidency Report to the Permanent
Representatives Committee that it believes a link
between the two systems “would promote a harmonious development of economic activities, will
eliminate distortions of competition, will be cost
efficient and will increase the level of integration
and functioning of the internal market” of the
European Union.
It certainly appears to be true that a link would
benefit the users of both systems, especially users
based in the European Union – more than 80
percent of all applications under the Madrid system, and more than 60 percent of all CTM
applications, are filed by individuals and
organizations based in the European Union.
SEE
LINKING PAGE 4
Law and Practice
ANGOLA
ISRAEL
Approval of Paris Convention and
Patent Cooperation Treaty
Israel Prepares to Join the Madrid Protocol
By Resolution No 22/03, dated June 6, 2003, the
Angolan Parliament approved the Paris Convention
for the Protection of Industrial Property, including
the 1979 revised text.
This Resolution also approved the Patent
Cooperation Treaty, concluded in 1970 and revised
in 1979 and 1984.
The Resolution signifies the government’s intention to subscribe to the treaties named. No instruments of accession have been deposited yet, so the
potential effective date(s) of joining are not available
for publication. A revised industrial property law is
being prepared to specify the responsibilities Angola
will assume when the accessions become effective.
Angola has been a contracting party of WIPO
since 1984 and joined the WTO on November 23,
1996.
Source: Resolution No. 22/03 published in the Diário da República
(Official Gazette) No. 44, Série I, June 6, 2003, Angola; Contributor:
João Paulo Mioludo, Raul César Ferreira (Herd.), Lda., Lisbon,
Portugal; Verifier: Mac Spence, Spoor & Fisher Jersey, Jersey,
Channel Islands
The Israeli legislature has passed an important and substantial amendment to
Israeli trademark law. This amendment to the Israeli Trademarks Ordinance [New
version]-1972, which was approved at the end of July 2003, implements the provisions of the Madrid Protocol and adopts its provisions into Israeli law. The amendment to the law will come into force three months after Israel officially accedes to
the Madrid Protocol, most likely towards the end of 2004.
In a November 1995 agreement establishing an association between the State of
Israel and the European Union and its member states, Israel undertook to join the
Madrid Protocol. With the recent legislative actions, Israel has taken significant
steps towards acceding to the Protocol.
In 2004, as soon as the provisions of the amendment to the Israeli Trademark
Law come into force, Israeli nationals and persons who are domiciled in Israel, or
have a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment there, will be able
to secure International Registrations according to the Protocol. Israeli nationals
will be able to file international applications (by using the Israeli Trademark Office
which will serve as an Office of Origin) or request territorial extension (“subsequent designations”) of registered marks to member states of the Madrid Protocol.
Nationals of other member states of the Madrid Protocol will be able to designate
Israel in international applications or subsequent designations filed according to
the Provisions of the Protocol.
This amendment to Israeli Trademark Law also implements harmonization of
national Israeli trademark applications and registrations with International
Applications and Registrations according to the Protocol. The initial term of a
mark will be ten years as of the filing date (instead of seven years). The renewal
term will also be ten years (instead of 14 years). In addition, it will be possible to
file multi-class applications (only single-class applications may be filed currently).
Source: Ron Klagsbald, Price-Klagsbald Law Offices, Ramat-Gan, Israel; Verifier: Eitan Shaulsky, Sanford T.
Colb & Co., Rehovot, Israel
TURKEY
Turkish Court of Appeals Allows Slogans to be Registered as Trademarks
In a landmark judgment, the Turkish Court of Appeals recently ruled that slogans can be registered as trademarks if they comply with certain requirements.
The Turkish Trademark Law, enacted in 1995, does not explicitly prohibit the registration of slogans. As long as an application meets the
basic requirements under law, the Turkish Patent Institute (TPI) can allow the registration of slogans. However, since its inception the TPI
has not been granting registrations for slogans since it reasoned that slogans do not designate the trademark proprietor and lack distinctiveness.
On March 17, 2003, the Court of Appeals resolved the longstanding dispute on slogan registration. In this case, the plaintiff-appellant
had applied for the registration of the slogan “GET CONNECTED TO THE FLAVOR OF THE WORLD” and the TPI on the abovementioned grounds had refused the application. The applicant brought its case to the court and appealed that refusal.
The local court at first instance decided that according to evidence collected, the subject of the slogan was known and had been registered
as a trademark in a number of countries, and it was original and of distinctive character, therefore the Institute’s decision in rejecting the
application should be annulled. The Court of Appeal affirmed the local court’s grant in favor of the plaintiff.
After the decision of the Court of Appeals, slogan owners have a chance to register their slogans if they meet the requirements of distinctiveness. As long as the applicant provides the TPI with proof of a slogan’s descriptive distinctive features, it may qualify for trademark
registration.
Source: Isik Ozdogan, Ofo Ventura Sinai Mulkiyet Hizmetleri Ltd.St., Istanbul, Turkey; Verifier: Cagan Dayanir, Tomak, Dayanir & Sagkan Law Office, Ankara, Turkey
2
Vol. 58, No. 18
Representing the Trademark Community since 1878
NEW ZEALAND
UKRAINE
Commencement of New Trade Marks Act
in New Zealand
New Fees
On August 20, 2003, the New Zealand Trade Marks Act 2002 came into force,
and new Trade Mark Regulations have been published.
Major changes include:
Multiclass Registration:
One application for registration may cover more than one class of goods or
services. Although there will be separate application fees for each class included
in an application, this change is expected to reduce trademark registration costs.
Ten-Year Term:
Trademarks will be registered for an initial term of ten years rather than seven
years, and each renewal will be for a ten-year term rather than for 14 years.
Three-Year Nonuse Period:
Registrations will be subject to cancellation after only three years of nonuse,
instead of the current five years. However, existing registrations will benefit
from an initial five-year nonuse term. The onus is now on the registered owner
to prove use to defend a nonuse application.
Simplified Assignments:
Trademarks are now freely assignable, and partially assignable with or without
the goodwill of the business in which they are used, and there are now no specific time limits for recording assignments. However, use by an assignee who
has not been registered as the owner will not count against an allegation of
nonuse. Assignments must therefore be recorded promptly.
Removal for Genericism:
A trademark registration will now be subject to cancellation if, as a consequence
of acts or inactivity of the owner, the trademark becomes a common name in
general public use for a product or service for which it is registered.
Infringement Extended:
A registration will now be infringed for unauthorized use on goods or services
not similar to those in the registration if the trademark is well known in New
Zealand, and if such use takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the mark.
Comparative Advertising:
Use in comparative advertising will not be considered infringement unless it is
not in accordance with fair practices and without due cause takes unfair advan tage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the mark.
Restriction on Alterations and Amendments:
A registered trademark can no longer be altered or amended, whereas previously a trademark could be altered or amended in a manner not substantially
affecting its identity. Also, there are restrictions on amending pending applications.
Changes to Registrability:
It is now clear that a trademark cannot be registered if its use would be likely to
offend a significant section of the community. Also, the distinction between
Part A and Part B registration is abolished, and any trademark having distinctive character may be registrable.
Source: Corinne Blumsky, A. J. Park, Wellington, New Zealand; Verifier: Penny Catley, KPMG Legal,
Wellington, New Zealand
www.inta.org
A directive “On Amending the Regulations for the
Procedure of Paying Fees for Actions Related to
Protection of Intellectual Property” was adopted on June
16, 2003 in Ukraine. According to this Directive, the
rates of all official fees have been increased by 50 percent.
Source: SD Petosevic, Belgium; Verifier: Antonina Pakharenko-Anderson,
Pakharenko & Partners, Kiev, Ukraine
Check Your
Mailboxes to
Renew Your INTA
Membership
It’s that time of year again! Please
check your mailboxes and email for a
membership renewal notice.
Remember, December 31, 2003 is
the deadline to renew your membership with INTA and to receive benefits such as the INTA Membership
Directory, Trademark Reporter®
journal, INTA Bulletin newsletter and
much more.
Please send questions about the renewal
process to [email protected].
Vol. 58, No. 18
3
Linking the CTM and the Madrid Protocol
CONTINUED FROM PAGE
1
Before the CTM system can join the
Protocol, the Council of the European
Union must issue both a Council Decision
(approving the accession of the European
Community to the Protocol) and a Council
Regulation (amending the CTM rules to
make the link work). The European
Commission presented the necessary proposals (the “Proposals”) to the European
Parliament in July 1996 and these were
approved on May 16, 1997.
The next step was for the European
Council to examine the Proposals in detail.
Approval for the proposals requires the
unanimous agreement of the delegations of
the Member States of the European Union
– this is where the process started to stall.
The Proposals were examined by a
Working Party and then the Permanent
Representatives Committee (COREPER)
(whose function is to prepare the work of
the European Council). It quickly became
apparent that it would not be possible to
obtain unanimous agreement on the
Proposals, and work on this issue was suspended in May 1998.
After a break of five years, work on the
Proposals began again in May 2003, following the publication of a new report from the
Presidency to the Permanent Representatives
Committee that amended texts of the
Proposals.
It appears that objections
regarding the language
were resolved during the
September 19 COREPER
meeting in Brussels.
The main area of dispute relates to “conversion.” Put simply, it is possible to “convert” a refused CTM application into a
national application in each Member State,
where the application is dealt with under
the usual national rules (including language,
so translation may be necessary). This
option is included in the Proposals and is
not controversial. In addition, the Proposals
include the possibility of conversion into a
national designation under the Protocol
with no translation necessary. It is this pro-
From INTA Publications
The Community
Trade Mark
Editors: Julian Gyngell, Allan
Poulter, Peter Brownlow
Let 18 expert European
practitioners lead you
through the intricacies of
CTM law, practice and procedure in this, the single
most comprehensive
resource on the subject.
Member: US $175.00
Non-Member: US $225.00
Publication Year: 1999 /
2002
Number of Pages: 800
Looseleaf / Supplements
ISBN: 0-939190-31-1
4
Vol. 58, No. 18
vision, referred to as “opting back” on which
agreement could not initially be reached.
The other issue which raised concerns
among several delegations in the EU was
the possible adoption of Spanish as an official language of the Protocol. This issue,
along with the the amendments to the
Common Regulations for the Madrid
System relating to Opting Back, were considered at the September 2003 World
Intellectual Property Organization meeting
(see update in next INTA Bulletin).
Although official confirmation cannot be
obtained, it appears that objections regarding the language were resolved during the
September 19 COREPER meeting in
Brussels, which reached a political agreement on the link between the CTM and
the Madrid Protocol. This development is
extremely positive as it means that when the
Council formally adopts the COREPER
recommendation, the EU may deposit its
instrument of accession to the Madrid
Protocol soon after.
By Mark Holah, Field Fisher Waterhouse, London, United
Kingdom
Exhibition & Sponsorship
Opportunities in Atlanta
Exhibition and sponsorship opportunities
for INTA’s 126 th Annual Meeting, held
May 1 – 5, 2004 in Atlanta, Georgia, USA,
will be announced on Wednesday, October
1, 2003 at www.inta.org/sponsor/current.html.
An application form will be posted on
Tuesday, October 7 at 10:00 a.m. U.S.
Eastern Standard Time, and applications will
be accepted on a first come, first served
basis.
Please email your questions to [email protected].
Representing the Trademark Community since 1878
Bulgarian Seminar
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1
examination procedures and recent case law affecting European
trademark law and practice. Petter Rindforth (Groth and Co. KB,
Stockholm, Sweden) spoke about domain names.
The afternoon session, chaired by Gordana Pavlovic (Cabinet
Pavlovic, Brussels, Belgium and Belgrade, Serbia-Montenegro),
focused on geographical indications, well-known marks and exhaustion of trademark rights. Burkhart Goebel (Lovells, Hamburg,
Germany), co-chair of the INTA Geographical Indications
Subcommittee, spoke about GI protection under the main international treaties and the current developments at the WTO level.
Gerhard Bauer (DaimlerChrysler, Stuttgart, Germany) spoke about
well-known marks protection principles and exhaustion of trademark rights, offering a comparison of levels of protection in various
Eastern European countries. Appellate Judge Alexei Ivanov closed
the afternoon session by discussing a recent trademark infringement
case on which he ruled, involving the use of a Cyrillic mark confusingly similar to a prior registered trademark.
Fifty people attended the seminar, including a large representation from the Bulgarian Patent and Trademark Office, representatives from the Macedonian and Romanian Patent and Trademark
Offices, representatives from three Bulgarian companies, Sopharma,
BalkanPharma and United Milk Company, INTA members from
Bulgaria and Croatia and an IP professor from the Bulgarian
Technical University of Sofia.
INTA continues to promote roundtable discussions throughout
Eastern Europe and the CIS countries to build relationships with
local patent and trademark offices, facilitate harmonization of trademark law and contribute to enriching local trademark practices.
By Chehrazade Chemcham, International Trademark Association, New York, New York,
USA
October 27, 2003
9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Topic:
Domain Names and Geographical Indications –
Country Names
Host:
Theodorides, P.S., Papaconstantinou, H.G.
www.hplaw.biz
Registration Contact:
2 Coumbari Street
Kolonaki
106 74 Athens, Greece
Phone: +30 210 362 5757, 362 6624
Fax: +30 201 362 6742, 360 5873
Email: [email protected]
www.inta.org
USA
GREECE
Roundtable Circuit
October 6 – 17, 2003
Topic:
Legal Issues in Marketing and Advertising
Location:
Various Locations in the United States
October 20 – 31, 2003
Topic:
Opposition/Cancellation Proceedings
Location:
Various Locations in the United States
For more information, or to register, visit
www.inta.org/events
Vol. 58, No. 18
5
World Update
Stepped-Up IPR Enforcement by the Police in Singapore
On June 25, 2003, the police successfully
conducted a raid seizing 11,000 counterfeit
items of various famous brands such as
ROLEX and LOUIS VUITTON.
Trademark owners in Singapore have traditionally relied on a “self-help” system for
trademark enforcement. Therefore, the
police-initiated raid marks a significant milestone in tackling counterfeiting activities run
by well-organized syndicates.
The raid was the result of information
given to the police after a six-month investigation conducted by a private investigation
firm on behalf of several trademark owners.
The haul, seized from four shops and two
storehouses, was the largest seizure of counterfeit products of this sort in Singapore. It
also resulted in the arrests of 18 people,
including the head of the syndicate and his
wife. The syndicate had allegedly been bringing in consignments of the counterfeit items
from Hong Kong and Thailand twice a
month.
Earlier this year, firms specializing in intel-
lectual property were asked to submit to the
police a list of the various brand owners they
represented. Based on this list, the law firms
were contacted prior to the raid and asked to
contact the brand representatives to be on
standby to verify that the goods seized were
counterfeit.
While self-initiated trademark enforcement by the police is a welcome move, such
enforcement, for the moment, appears to be
only in relation to situations in which major
syndicates are involved. Therefore, trademark
owners are still by and large left on their own
to apply for search warrants to seize counterfeit goods and to prosecute the offenders in
cases of isolated counterfeiting activities.
A further boost to Singapore’s IP enforcement efforts is apparent in Singapore’s trademark border enforcement measures.
Although these measures have been the subject of some criticism for their onerous
requirements, they were recently implemented successfully. On June 2, 2003, two 20foot containers suspected to contain counter-
feit goods were discharged from the vessel
M/V Iran Tehran. 48,000 cartons of counterfeit cigarettes with an estimated street
value of S$3.7 million were found and seized
by customs officers.
By Dedar Singh Gill, Drew & Napier LLC, Singapore
A LOUIS VUITTON bag
IT Coalition to Combat Counterfeiting in India
In India, growth of the information technology (IT) peripheral and software sector has
been significantly affected by massive piracy
and counterfeiting activity. To counter rampant piracy and infringement, an association
of IT companies has been formed under the
aegis of the Manufacturers Association of
Information Technology (MAIT). The
founding member companies of the association include Hewlett-Packard Company,
Epson and Canon, Inc.
The association plans to:
• Organize seminars and workshops including judicial and enforcement authorities.
• Lobby with the government to facilitate
changes to assist anticounterfeiting efforts in
India and change the cumbersome laws and
regulations.
• Initiate enforcement by customs and excise
departments for preventing the import and
export of infringing products.
• Work with intellectual property enforcement police departments in certain cities.
6
Vol. 58, No. 18
• Include intellectual property law as a subject in orientation training programs for
magistrates and public (state) prosecutors.
2003. Several prominent public figures
attended the workshop, including the
Minister for Information Technology &
Tourism, Government of Karnataka, the
joint commissioner of police, Bangalore and
other senior police officials, customs officials,
the chief public prosecutor, industry representatives and several attorneys.
A similar workshop is scheduled to be
held in New Delhi on October 11, 2003.
The objective of this workshop will be to
highlight the lack of effective laws for preventing the import and export of infringing
goods, and ask the government to add
amendments to its procedural laws, which
can expedite matters pending in court.
By Bijesh Thakker, Thakker & Thakker Advocates &
Solicitors, Mumbai, India
A workshop to incorporate these objectives was organized by MAIT in the IT
capital of India, Bangalore, on August 9,
Representing the Trademark Community since 1878
In the News
“In the News” is a compilation of articles about trademark law and business abstracted from news
publications from around the world. In this issue, items in the news include the following:
Fair and Balanced
Fox News dropped its trademark infringement lawsuit against political commentator/comedian Al Franken and his publisher, Penguin
Group, after U.S. District Judge Denny Chin called the case “wholly
without merit both factually and legally.”
Franken’s latest book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A
Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, was released on September 22,
2003. Fox News had claimed that the book’s title infringes on its registered U.S. trademark FAIR & BALANCED and could confuse
consumers into thinking that the book is associated with Fox.
Judge Chin said that Franken was clearly mocking Fox, and
thought that it was ironic that a media company that should be
fighting to protect the First Amendment would file a case seeking to
undermine the free speech provision of the U.S. Constitution. He
also said that the phrase “fair and balanced” constitutes a weak trademark because the words are used so frequently.
However, Fox is considering an
appeal. “We don’t care if it’s Al Franken
or Al Lewis or Weird Al Yankovic,” said
Paul Schur, a Fox spokesman. “We’re
here to protect our trademark and our
talent.”
Franken joked, “By the way, a few
months ago, I trademarked the word
‘funny.’ So when Fox calls me ‘unfunny,’
they’re violating my trademark. I am
seriously considering a countersuit.”
Editor: Barbara E. Cookson, Nabarro Nathanson, London, United Kingdom; Sources: The
New York Times, “To Fox ‘Fair And Balanced’ Doesn’t Describe Al Franken,” August 12,
2003; Yahoo News, “Franken Makes Light of Fox Slogan Lawsuit,” “Fox Loses Bid to Stop
Sale of Franken Book,” August 12 and 22, 2003
They Call Me “Mr. Ray”
Ray Yodlowsky, a New Jersey-area entertainer who specializes in children’s
songs and parties, is suing Finding Nemo distributors Disney and Pixar for
US $10 million because they named one of the characters in the movie
“Mr. Ray.” The movie character is a manta ray that teaches a school of fish
and sings songs as he takes his students on underwater “field” trips. Mr.
Yodlowsky, who also goes by the name “Mr. Ray” and has his own website
at www.mrray.com, wants Disney to stop flooding the market with its own
Mr. Ray merchandise, such as CDs with “singalongs” and music.
According to Mr. Yodlowsky’s attorney, Wallace Collins, the media blitz
surrounding the movie Finding Nemo would hurt the musical prospects of
the human Mr. Ray. “We don’t want to stop the movie. The problem is the
merchandising. That stuff will kill us,” said Mr. Collins.
Because Mr. Yodlowsky owns a federal registration for the MR. RAY
mark, the suit could be problematic for Disney and Pixar. In addition, Mr.
Collins claims to have examples of actual confusion among people who
tried to book his client for parties. “There does seem to be a greater awareness that a name can be intellectual property, and so it is reasonable from a
business standpoint to protect those rights,” said Janet Fries, a trademark
lawyer with Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP in Washington, DC.
Source: “‘Mr. Ray: The real ‘Nemo’sis.
Suing over a Disney character’s
name? It’s not all that fishy.’” New York
(CNN/Money), July 19, 2003; Editor:
Brenda Mora Miller, Avaya Inc.,
Basking Ridge, New Jersey, USA
www.inta.org
Directory Changes
Since publication of the INTA Membership
Directory in March, INTA has been notified of several changes. Please note the
following:
The company name of Irene De Sola
should be changed to DE SOLA PATE &
BROWN on page 189.
The EA1 address of the designee,
Richard Nicholas Brown, of DE SOLA
PATE & BROWN should be changed to
[email protected] on page 189.
The address of Best Western
International, Inc. should be changed to
6201 N. 24th Parkway, Phoenix, AZ
85016-2023 United States. The EA1
should be deleted on page 133.
The listing of Christopher Morcom
should be changed to Christopher Morcom
Q.C. on pages 124 and 272.
Vol. 58, No. 18
7
Mark Your Calendars
October 6 – 17, 2003
Legal Issues in Marketing and Advertising Roundtable,
Various cities in the United States
October 20 – 31, 2003
INTA BULLETIN EDITORIAL BOARD
To contact a member of the INTA Bulletin send an
email to [email protected]
Olga M. Nedeltscheff
Editor-in-Chief
Philip Morris International Management S.A.
Lausanne, Switzerland
Trademark Administrators Roundtable – Opposition/Cancellation
Proceedings, Various cities
October 27, 2003
Domain Names and Geographical Indications – Country Names
Roundtable, Athens, Greece
November 12 – 15, 2003
Trevor Stevens
Senior Editor
Davies Collison Cave, Sydney, Australia
INTA Leadership Meeting, Boca Raton, Florida, USA
Theodore Lienesch
Executive Editor, Law & Practice: The Americas
Thompson Hine LLP, Dayton, Ohio, USA
Worldwide Forum on Trademark Protection, Geneva, Switzerland
Simon Page
Executive Editor, Law & Practice: Europe, Middle East
Schneider Page, London, United Kingdom
Kay Rickelman
Executive Editor, Law & Practice: Asia, Africa
Spoor & Fisher, Pretoria, South Africa
Mary DeLongis
Executive Editor, Features
Diageo North America Inc., Stamford, Connecticut,
USA
Tim Lockhart
Executive Editor, Features
Willcox & Savage, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, USA
December 1 – 2, 2003
December 11, 2003
TTAB for Advanced Practitioners, Crystal City, Virginia, USA
January 19 – 30, 2004
Madrid Protocol and the Community Trade Mark Roundtable,
Various cities in the United States
February 23 – 24, 2004
Advanced Trademark Symposium, Charleston, South Carolina, USA
March 7 – 9, 2004
INTA/ASIPI Conference 2004, Buenos Aires, Argentina
INTA BULLETIN STAFF
Naeran Rubio
Managing Editor
Elaine Czach
Associate Editor
For more information, visit the INTA website at www.inta.org/events or call
Customer Service at +1-212-768-9887, ext. 157
David Sokolosky
Designer
INTA SENIOR STAFF
Alan Drewsen
Executive Director
Maria Bachman
Director, Human Resources & Association Governance
Ann Eng
Director, Education
Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of items carried in this
newsletter, readers are urged to check independently on matters of specific concern
or interest. The INTA Bulletin primarily relies on members of the INTA Bulletin
Committee and INTA staff for content but also accepts submissions from others. The
INTA Bulletin Editorial Board reserves the right to make, in its sole discretion, editorial changes to any item offered to it for publication.
Daryl G. Grecich
Director, Marketing & Communications
Bruce MacPherson
Director, External Relations
Feikje van Rein
Director, Operations & Meetings
INTA Department Email Addresses
Executive Director: [email protected]
Membership: [email protected]
TM Affairs & Policies: [email protected]
Meetings: [email protected]
Publications: [email protected]
The Trademark Reporter®: [email protected]
Public Relations: [email protected]
Administration & Finance: [email protected]
Customer Service: [email protected]
Job Bank: [email protected]
Brand Names Education Foundation: [email protected]
Sponsorship: [email protected]
© 2003 International Trademark Association
International Trademark Association
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036 USA
+1 (212) 768-9887 • f: +1 (212) 768-7796
www.inta.org • [email protected]