BulletinThe Voice of the International Trademark Association January 15, 2010 Vol. 65 No. 2

IN ThIs Issue AssociAtion news

2010 INTA President Heather Steinmeyer Discusses a New Decade in Trademarks

Fifth Global Congress onCombating Counterfeiting Advances Trademark Owners’ Objectives

Over 200 Professionals DiscussCurrent European Trademark Issuesat INTA Conference in Vienna

FeAturesCriminal Prosecution for Counterfeiting in Latin America

Educating Businesspeople About the Importance of Trademark Rights

LAw & PrActiceBrazIlCongress Adopts Legislation to Curb Ambush Marketing During 2016 Summer Olympics

Decision Improves Ability to Recover Domain Names

eurOPeaN uNION1, 2, 3 … So Many Attempts, But Still No Trademark Registration for Numerals!

GerMaNYFederal Court of Justice Rejects FIFA’s Cancellation Claims Against Third-Party World Cup Trademarks

lIBYaChange in Documents Required for Filing Trademark Applications

PeruCongress UnanimouslyApproves Accession toHague Apostille Convention

TaIWaNIP Court Denies Attempt to SecureExclusive Rights to 三井 SAN JING

2010 INTa President heather steinmeyer Discusses a New Decade in Trademarks

Fifth Global Congress onCombating Counterfeiting advances Trademark Owners’ Objectives

The INTA Bulletin caught up with Heather Steinmeyer in the early days of her term as 2010 INTA President to dis-cuss her career in trademarks and her plans for the Associa-tion. Ms. Steinmeyer lives and works in Chicago, Illinois, USA, and is currently serving as Senior Associate General Counsel for WellPoint, Inc.

How did you first start working in trademarks?

After deciding that a career in publishing was not every-thing I thought it would be, I decided to go to law school. I started law firm in an IP bou-tique. I figured out pretty quickly that I had lucked into a fascinating area of the law, and never looked back.

On December 1 – 3, 2009, INTA co-convened the Fifth Global Congress on Combating Counterfeiting and Piracy, in Cancun, Mexico, as part of a unique public–private partnership with INTERPOL, the World Intellectual Prop-erty Organization (WIPO), the World Cus-toms Organization (WCO), the International Chamber of Commerce’s Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy (BASCAP) and the International Security Management Associ-ation (ISMA). In collaboration with the Mexi-can Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI), the Global Congress brought together more than 800 delegates from 80 countries to share prac-tices on fighting the illicit trade in counterfeit and pirated goods and to identify opportunities for the public and private sectors to improve their respective efforts individually as well as in partnership with one another.

2009 INTA President Richard Heath (Uni-lever PLC—UK), provided opening and clos-

What does your daily work at WellPoint involve?

No two days look alike, which is a big part of why I love my job. An average day can include things like nego-tiating a trademark license in China, participating in a brand architecture develop-ment team, monitoring a do-main name auction, pursuing several trademark conflicts, offering a copyright aware-ness seminar and discussing a patent office action response with the inventors.

When did you first become involved in INTA, and why?

The firm I joined as a new lawyer was

ing remarks for INTA at the Global Congress, urging more to be done at the global and local level. He stated that industry stakeholders need to not only continue, but increase collabora-tion with each other and with governments to improve enforcement, enhance legislation and educate and protect consumers from the dan-gers of counterfeiting.

The Global Congress examined the chal-lenges of fighting counterfeiting and piracy in light of the economic crisis, which is exacerbat-ing the problem and straining enforcement re-sources. Government and industry leaders both emphasized the need to maintain the fight, en-hance cooperation and coordination with each other and increase public and political aware-ness of the issue. In addition to continuing dialogues on improvements to legislation and enforcement measures that not only punish, but also deter counterfeiters, topics such as the

Continued on page 3

Continued on next page

Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878January 15, 20102

INTA BulleTIN COMMITTeeTo contact a member of the INTA Bulletin Committee, send an email to the managing editor at bulletin@inta.org.

ChairJanice Housey, Latimer, Mayberry & Matthews

Vice ChairWalter Palmer, Pinheiro Palmer Advogados

association NewsMarie Lussier, Chitiz Pathak LLPKen Taylor, Marksmen

FeaturesValerie Brennan, Hogan & Hartson LLPAlexander Klett, Reed Smith LLP

law & Practice: africa, Central asia, eastern europe & Middle eastCharles Sha’ban, Abu-Ghazaleh Intellectual Property

law & Practice: asia–PacificBarbara Sullivan, Henry Hughes Patent & Trademark

Attorneys

law & Practice: europeWiebke Baars, Taylor WessingChristoph Gasser, Staiger, Schwald & Partner Ltd.

law & Practice: latin america & CaribbeanJohn Murphy, Arochi, Marroquin & Lindner S.C.

law & Practice: united states & CanadaTimothy Lockhart, Willcox & Savage PC

INTA BulleTIN sTaFFexecutive Director Alan C. Drewsen

Director, Publishing Randi Mustello

Managing editor, INTA BulletinJames F. Bush

associate editor, INTA BulletinJoel L. Bromberg

Designer Jesse Riggle

OFFICers & COuNselPresidentHeather Steinmeyer, WellPoint, Inc.

President electGerhard Bauer, Daimler AG

Vice PresidentGregg Marrazzo, Kimberly-Clark Corporation

Vice PresidentToe Su Aung, BATMark Ltd.

TreasurerBret Parker, Pfizer Inc.

secretaryMei-lan Stark, Fox Entertainment Group

CounselDale Cendali, Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of items in this newsletter, readers are urged to check independently on matters of specific interest. The INTA Bulletin 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.

For permission to reproduce INTA Bulletin articles, send a brief message with the article’s name, volume and issue number, proposed use and estimated number of copies or viewers to bulletin@inta.org.

INTA Bulletin sponsorships in no way connote INTA’s endorsement of the products, services or messages depicted therein.

© 2010 International Trademark Association

Fifth Global Congress Continued from previous page

status of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agree-ment (ACTA) and responsibility of third parties who knowingly assist counterfeiters in selling or distributing counterfeits were discussed.

INTA’s best practices on addressing the sale of counterfeit goods on the Internet were discussed during the session “Collaborating on Fighting Counterfeiting and Piracy on the Internet,” as an example of how trade associations can be helpful facilitators for business stakeholders to determine how to practically address this issue. Finding practical solutions and continuing and expanding involvement of stakeholders were also emphasized at this panel, and the best prac-tices, which included practices for online mar-ketplaces, search engines, payment service pro-viders and trademark owners, were recognized as a valuable first step in the right direction.

Key recommendations for specific actions based upon speaker presentations and delegate input will be developed and posted on the Glob-al Congress website soon (www.ccapcongress.net). Lucy Nichols (Nokia-USA), chair of the 2008-2009 INTA Anti-Counterfeiting and En-forcement Committee (ACEC), and Robin Gruber (Chanel-USA), chair of the ACEC’s China Subcommittee, also attended and spoke at the Global Congress. They were joined by Bruce MacPherson, INTA Director-External Relations Director, and Candice Li, INTA Manager for Anti-Counterfeiting and representative for INTA in the Global Congress Steering Group.

2009 INTA President Richard Heath (Unilever PLC—UK) addresses the more than 800 attendees at the Fifth Global Congress on Combating Counterfeiting

Welcome New MembersAdams Pluck, Hornsby, Australia; Apex Law Chamber, Kathmandu, Nepal; Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Chicago, IL, US; AROC–Arrocha Castrellon y Asocia-dos, Panama, Panama; Arrufat Gracia PLLC, New York, NY, USA; Attorney at Law Dragan Micunovic, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Bambi Faivre Walters, PC Patent & Trademark Attorneys, Williamsburg, VA, US; Bamboo & Bees, Paris, France; Caribbean Trademark Services, Providenciales, Turks and Caicos Islands; Circuit, McKellogg, Kinney & Ross LLP, La Jolla, CA, US; Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Plano, TX, US; Craft Chu PLLC, Houston, TX, US; De Alva & Asociados., Mexico City, Mexico; DePuy & Asociados, Panama, Panama; Francine Tan & Associates, Singapore, Singapore; GLP Srl, Milano, Italy; Handal Asia Pacific Sdn. Bhd., Puchong, Malaysia; Hyra IP, PLC, Reston, VA, US; Imperial Oil Limited, Toronto, ON, Canada; Inventa International Ltd., Luanda, Angola; Karanovic & Nikolic, Skopje, Macedonia, Podgorica, Montenegro; Kingcraft International Patent & Trademark Office, Taichung City, Taiwan; Lakshmikumaran and Sridharan, New Delhi, India; Law Office of Laura J. Winston, White Plains, NY, US; Liu Patent & Trademark Law Firm, Munich, Germany; Mohajerian, Inc., Los Angeles, CA, US; Pangrle Pat-ent, Brand + Design Law, P.C., Burbank, CA, US; Potamitis Vekris, Athens, Greece; Protocol Intellectual Property, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Remfry & Son, Karachi, Pakistan; Renner Otto Boisselle & Sklar, Cleveland, OH, US; Rohde & Associates S.C., Mexico City, Mexico; S. Ferrandis & Partners, Madrid, Spain; SBZL Intellectual Property Agency, Guangzhou, China; Sok Siphana & Associates, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; Solvay Pharmaceuticals B.V., Weesp, Netherlands

AssociAtion news

www.inta.org 3Vol. 65, No. 2

already an INTA member, so that made it easy to jump in right away. I was fortunate that the firm recognized the value of sending even first-year lawyers to the Annual Meeting. Thanks to the many contacts I made through INTA, I began building a book of business almost immediately.

What INTA project have you most enjoyed working on?I really love strategy issues, so I enjoyed working on both the

2006–2009 and the 2010–2013 Strategic Plans.

What is the most important issue in trademark law today?It’s tough to choose just one, but Internet-driven trademark

issues stand out, in particular ICANN’s management of the domain name system and the proposed unlimited expansion of gTLDs.

How is INTA addressing this issue?INTA has been a strong advocate for the position that any

expansion of the generic domain space must be responsible, de-liberate and justified. Chief among INTA’s responses has been adoption of a resolution by the Board of Directors focusing on the accountability of ICANN and its proposal to allow an un-limited amount of new gTLDs. This has been supported by tes-timony in 2009 by INTA President Richard Heath before the U.S. Congress and extensive comments to ICANN on versions of the Draft Application Guidebook, and through a leadership role with the Intellectual Property Constituency in helping to convince ICANN to form the Implementation Recommenda-tion Team that developed tools for protecting trademarks as new gTLDs are rolled out.

What are your plans and priorities for INTA in 2010?We have no shortage of significant issues and opportunities

to consider. Most important is to get the best possible start to achieve the goals of the new Strategic Plan and ensure a smooth transition into an updated committee structure. Other 2010 pri-orities include: plans for products and services that effectively serve small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)—a new goal

in the 2010–2013 Strategic Plan; developing recommendations for how INTA can encourage its volunteers to engage in pro bono work under the INTA brand, with the goal of establishing a new Volunteer Service Award; reviewing whether INTA should support the proposition that the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit be expanded to include appeals of Lanham Act cases from federal district courts as well as the TTAB; and giving special attention to the CTM Study. Finally, we expect to undertake a review of the INTA bylaws, which have not been updated in at least five years.

Do you have a favorite trademark?I’ve always appreciated the fun that could be had with a mark

that is a palindrome, like OXO, but in my heart of hearts, it’s the PILLSBURY DOUGHBOY. I have a friend who collects all things DOUGHBOY, and I admit to coveting her vintage DOUGHBOY kitchen timer.

What do you enjoy when you are not working on trademarks?Family and friends are at the top of the list, but also baking,

cooking, making jewelry, reading and scuba diving—when I can get somewhere with water warmer than Lake Michigan!

Tell us something about you that most people don’t know.My son asked me recently what I would do if I could have

absolutely any job, real or not. I told him I’d be a jazz singer in a club on a space station, fulfilling my alternating childhood dreams of being an astronaut (like all good children of the 1960s) and a jazz singer like Ella Fitzgerald or Sarah Vaughan (epitomes of cool in my childhood eyes—maybe still).

Coming in February to the 2010 Annual Meeting main brochure page on www.inta.org: a podcast with Heather Steinmeyer discuss-ing the Association’s goals for 2010 and previewing this year’s An-nual Meeting in Boston.

2010 INTa President heather steinmeyer Continued from page 1

Ken taylor, Marksmen inc., chapel Hill, north carolina, usA,co-chair of the intA Bulletin Association news subcommittee

DID YOu reNeW YOur INTa MeMBershIP? reNeWeD INTa MeMBers saVe us $500 + ON aNNual MeeTING reGIsTraTION!

This incredible savings is the difference between the member and

non-member registration rate.

are YOu a CurreNT INTa MeMBer?Renew your INTA membership today to continue receiving member

benefits such as a discounted Annual Meeting registration rate.

Visit www.inta.org/apps/renewal2 to renew today!

AssociAtion news

Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878January 15, 20104

Over 200 Professionals Discuss Current european Trademark Issues at INTa Conference in ViennaOn December 3 and 4, 2009, INTA held its tenth European conference in Vienna, Austria. The Examining European Trade-mark Issues and Developing New Strategies Conference proved to be a resounding success as it drew 230 trademark professionals from 43 countries, despite initial con-cerns that participation might be negatively affected by the current economic climate.

David Stone (Simmons & Simmons—UK) and Slobodan Petošević (Petošević—Belgium) did a fabulous job co-chairing the event.

The advanced-level conference spanned a wide variety of very in-teresting topics.

The conference began with a critical examination of dilution after Intelmark, L’Oréal v. Bellure and NASDAQ. In an animated and per-suasive manner, the experienced panelists discussed and questioned the ECJ’s rationale in those matters.

In the next session, seasoned law firm and in-house practitioners provided valuable tips and insights on ways to optimize trademark portfolios in an economic downturn (among them, the use of the seniority system as well as cost-effective yet efficient search and filing practices).

Afterwards, Alan Datri and Marcus Höpperger provided the au-dience with an update on the year’s most important developments at the World Intellectual Property Organization.

After the lunch break, WIPO Director General Francis Gurry was informally interviewed by James Nurton (Managing Intellec-tual Property—UK). Mr. Gurry discussed the challenges WIPO currently faces, as well as the organization’s future agenda (includ-ing changes in refusal procedures, introduction of e- and fast-track UDRP and the addition of new filing languages).

The interview was followed by a surprise event that had not been disclosed in the official program. Mr. Gurry was joined onstage by OHIM President Wubbo de Boer to sign a Common Understand-ing on Synergies Between WIPO and OHIM in Trademark Classifi-cation. The agreement—which Mr. de Boer described as an “impor-tant step towards the harmonization of the systems for goods and services classifications”—calls for a mutual exchange of databases. It foresees WIPO and OHIM working on a joint list of goods and services and a project that would provide an e-filing facility for inter-national applications based on CTM applications or registrations.

Two sessions, enlivened by very interesting video presentations and vivid debate between the panellists, followed. An entertaining session on trademark enforcement in the Balkans and beyond, and a practical session on comparative advertising wrapped up the work-ing part of Thursday’s program, followed by a networking reception at the host hotel, the InterContinental Wien.

Other evening receptions, hosted by Viennese law firms, allowed a glimpse into Vienna’s rich cultural heritage and provided a wel-come diversion from the topics of the conference.

Friday’s program commenced with an informative session on designs and nontraditional trade-marks at both the Community and national levels, with practical suggestions from in-house coun-sel about steps they are following to take advantage of under-uti-lized rights, such as Community Designs.

The second session discussed cost-effective enforcement strate-gies and featured a very compre-hensive overview of Alternative Dispute Resolution and its appli-cation in the field of IP.

Subsequently, OHIM Presi-dent de Boer was interviewed by Mr. Nurton. Mr. de Boer recapped the organization’s achievements over recent years and discussed the outlook for the future (including a totally “paperless” OHIM in the very near future, a possible further reduction in filing fees, and a single common list of goods and services with the UK IPO that will in 2010 be joined by the trademark offices of Germany and Sweden). The ensuing question and answer period enjoyed avid par-ticipation with the audience and gave Mr. de Boer the chance to further expand on some of the topics touched during the interview.

The sessions concluded with a light-hearted look at the special relationship between the United States and the European Union, with panelists from the United States but working for European companies, or working for U.S. companies in Europe. It was also a rare opportunity to hear four prominent in-house counsel (from The Coca-Cola Company, British American Tobacco, Red Bull and Procter & Gamble) talk about their roles.

Participants were unanimous in expressing their enthusiasm for the conference. Andreas Thielmann (Cohausz & Florack—Germa-ny), lauded the good choice of topics. Susie Arnesen (Sandel, Løje & Wahlberg—Denmark) praised the high quality of the presenta-tions as well as the fact that the panels at this year’s conference espe-cially fostered interactive discussion. Clemens Grünzweig (e/n/w/c Rechtsanwälte—Austria) called the event an “excellent conference for practitioners” and noted that it was “very interesting to hear the views of trademark experts from different jurisdictions; not only on important legal issues but also on very practical aspects of IP related work.”

Franck Soutoul (Inlex IP Expertise—France), attending an INTA event for the first time, stated that he would certainly attend the 2010 conference and probably bring two or three junior lawyers from his team, as he was very impressed with the overall quality of the event.

Overall, another INTA success. The next Europe Conference will be in Barcelona on December 9–10, 2010.

Jan Gerd Mietzel, Felsberg & Partners europe LLP, Düsseldorf, Germany,intA Bulletin—Association news subcommittee

Attendees at INTA’s 2009 Europe Conference visit thePicture Gallery at Vienna’s Kunsthistorisches Museum

AssociAtion news

www.inta.org 5Vol. 65, No. 2

Part One in a Three-Part series: Overview and Definition of Counterfeiting in latin america

The objective of this article is to analyze the status of criminal pros-ecution for trademark infringement and counterfeiting throughout Latin America, in order to provide a foundation upon which solu-tions to trademark infringement and counterfeiting can be devised, tested and implemented. The data, which have been provided by individual members of the 2008–2009 Anti-Counterfeiting & En-forcement Committee’s (ACEC’s) Latin America & Caribbean Sub-committee, reveal a snapshot of criminal prosecution in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela.

The first part introduces the overall criminal enforcement land-scape relating to counterfeiting, including how national laws define counterfeiting and who can be held criminally liable. The second part will examine criminal remedies for counterfeiting among the countries under discussion. The last segment explains the legal pro-ceedings involved in the criminal prosecution of counterfeiting.

Introduction

Latin American countries use legal systems that are rooted in Eu-ropean civil law tradition. As a result, previous judicial rulings do not form a definitive framework of binding legal precedents. In-stead, they merely provide persuasive authority for current court proceedings, which are heavily based upon evidentiary documenta-tion. Because owners of intellectual property (IP) rights may file actions against suspected counterfeiters and trademark infringers in both criminal and civil courts, it is crucial to decide where to begin.

In some situations, criminal prosecution has been problematic. Filing such actions usually has other implications, such as wide-spread public interest and participation by public prosecutors,

Criminal Prosecution for Counterfeiting in latin americawhich sometimes leads to interference. Also, punitive damages are not awarded in criminal trials for counterfeiting, with the exception of a minority of cases under Mexican law. Many times, one of the largest obstacles facing injured IP owners in criminal cases is that criminal judges hear a broad range of crimes with heavier penalties (e.g., murder, kidnapping, rape), and this usually results in a lack of interest in trademark infringement cases and a lack of specialized knowledge relating to IP law. In contrast, civil court judges often are very knowledgeable about IP law and have been deciding most of the countries’ trademark cases for years.

Unfortunately, criminal sentences for trademark infringement are short, and in many cases counterfeiters can benefit from a re-duced sentence of probation, which includes the suspension of pros-ecution and/or the substitution of criminal penalties with fines or community service. The severity of criminal punishment and the constitutional rights that courts must balance vis-à-vis the punish-ment imposed by a suspect’s conviction further complicate matters. Consequently, in many situations the threat of criminal prosecution does not discourage infringers; it is viewed merely as a “cost of doing business” and does not act as a deterrent.

Regardless of which method of legal recourse IP owners choose to use, there seems to be no judicial bias against international com-panies in Latin American courts. That being said, however, political issues affecting litigation should not be underestimated. In Latin America, trademark laws and prosecution take many forms.

“Counterfeiting” as Defined by National Laws

Of the countries surveyed by this article, the majority—Boliv-ia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay—specifically define counterfeiting as a crime within their national laws. In Guatemala, Panama and El Salvador, the crime of counterfeiting is not expressly defined by national laws, but it is nonetheless typified and proscribed by the country’s criminal code.

In Chile, counterfeiting is regulated by two laws. The Industrial Property Law defines counterfeiting as “the malicious use, for com-

Continued on next page

Sign up at www.inta.org/go/2010AcademicDay. Learn more about the Annual Meeting today at www.inta.org/go/annual.

Open to all Professors and Students

INTA’s first-ever Academic Day on Monday, May 24, presents a unique opportunity for program-ming and networking designed specifically for the academic community, which includes professors,

adjunct professors and students of trademark law.

Special Academic Day and Annual Meeting discounted registration rates are available for Professor and Student Members of INTA. Professor and Student Non-Members interested in attending either Academic Day or the Annual Meeting should contact INTA’s Senior Academic Programs Coordina-

tor, Carin Diep-Dixon, at cdiep@inta.org.

Prepared by the 2008–2009 Anticounterfeiting & enforcement committee’s Latin America & caribbean subcommittee, chaired by

Gustavo P. Giay, Marval, o’Farrell & Mairal, Buenos Aires, Argentina

FeAtures

Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878January 15, 20106

mercial purposes, of a trademark that is identical or similar to one already registered for the same goods, services, or establishments or related to goods, services, or establishments that are already pro-tected by a registered trademark.” In addition, the Criminal Code sanctions anyone who includes in a product name the name of a manufacturer that is not the real maker of the product, or the trade name of a factory that is different from the real manufacturer.

In Colombia, counterfeiting is defined as the fraudulent use of legally registered or confusingly similar commercial names, em-blems, trademarks, patents, utility models or industrial designs. In addition, Colombia’s criminal code punishes any individual who finances, supplies, distributes, sells, commercializes, transports or purchases goods or plants, produced, cultivated or distributed in any of the manners described in the law.

Under Mexican law, it is a crime to falsify (although “falsify” is not defined, in practice it is understood to mean to make unauthor-ized use of an identical trademark) a trademark but not to copy and manufacture a trademarked product. Instead, when a product is copied without authorization but does not bear a false trademark (e.g., no trademark at all), no crime has been committed.

In Paraguay, Chapters II and III of the Criminal Code establish sanctions for crimes against IP rights, models and industrial designs, including falsification, adulteration and fraudulent imitation.

Criminal legislation in Argentina, El Salvador, Guatemala and Venezuela does not specifically define counterfeiting as a crime.

Punishing Counterfeiting When It Is Not Expressly Defined by National Laws

The national laws of Argentina, Guatemala and Venezuela do not define counterfeiting as a crime. As a result, legal professionals use alternative methods within criminal law to punish counterfeiters.

In Argentina, for example, practitioners have had success pros-ecuting trademark infringements by using the following claims: (1) the accused mark was a counterfeit or fraudulent imitation of a reg-

Counterfeiting in latin america Continued from previous page

istered trademark or a trade name; (2) use of a counterfeit or fraudu-lently imitated registered trademark or trade name, or one belong-ing to a third party without his consent; (3) offering to sell or selling a counterfeit or fraudulently imitated registered trademark or trade name, or one belonging to a third party without his consent; (4) of-fering to sell or selling, or otherwise marketing, products or services with a counterfeit or fraudulently imitated registered trademark.

Similarly, in Venezuela legal professionals have used the coun-try’s criminal code to punish counterfeiters under its prohibition on fraud against commerce and industry. In particular, the follow-ing allegations have been made: (1) faking or altering the names, trademarks or distinctive signs of original works or the products of an industry; (2) using the names, trademarks or falsely registered or altered signs, regardless of whether the fraudulent act was com-mitted by a third party; (3) selling or otherwise circulating original works or industrial products with fake or altered names, trademarks or distinctive signs or with names, trademarks or distinctive signs capable of inducing confusion among buyers regarding their origin or quality, provided the works, trade names, trademarks or signs are legally registered in Venezuela.

In Guatemala, counterfeiting is penalized by the Criminal Code as a violation of industrial property rights.

Parties Responsible for Counterfeiting Crimes Under National Laws

In general, companies and associations cannot be held criminally liable for counterfeiting. Only individuals and their accomplices can be charged and convicted of crimes involving trademark infringe-ment and counterfeiting. This is true in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Pan-amá, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Part Two: Remedies will appear in the February 1 INTA Bulletin.

Whether you are from a law firm or in-house, you will find this program to be filled with useful and practical information that will help you and your business counterpart understand each other’s needs and expectations. You’ll learn:

• how other companies and firms are dealing with the troubled economy• what companies are looking for from their foreign associates• how law firms can provide excellent service to in-house clients• tips on preparing winning responses to requests for proposals• how outside counsel can get to know their business clients better and how they select firms to do the work

In-house counsel will also be able to benchmark and validate their practices against other companies and acquire valu-able information.

Visit www.inta.org/go/cpp2010.

early bird registration ends January 29. register now.

FeAtures

www.inta.org 7Vol. 65, No. 2

Whether managing a trademark portfolio in-house or litigating trademark disputes in a private setting, trademark professionals rou-tinely interact with businesspeople as clients and colleagues. These businesspeople may have little understanding of what a trademark is. Constantly surrounded by trademark issues, trademark profes-sionals can perhaps incorrectly assume that businesspeople appreci-ate and understand the importance of trademark rights simply as a result of daily exposure to trademarks in the marketplace.

Even though most consumers have some sense of the “source-in-dicating” significance of trademarks, having made brand-influenced purchasing decisions themselves, they may never have had cause to consider the actual importance and value of trademark rights. Suc-cessful, productive working relationships between trademark profes-sionals and businesspeople require that the businesspeople under-stand the importance of trademark rights, both overall and in the context of adoption, use and enforcement of a mark.

A World Without Trademarks

A good exercise for appreciating the value of anything is to imagine the impact created by its absence. The same holds true for conveying the importance of trademark rights to businesspeople. A world without trademark rights is a world without trademarks, the goodwill trademarks represent and the source-indicating signifi-cance trademarks convey.

Imagine a dark marketplace where consumers blindly purchase goods in same-shaped packaging—a world where competitive products cannot be distinguished by looking at the packaging and competitive services are not readily distinguishable by means of the advertising for them. Businesses would have no way to reliably distinguish their goods and/or services as emanating from a single source and, arguably, would have less incentive to build and main-tain reputations based on high-quality and reliable products and services. Consumers would make purchasing decisions without the benefit of their past experience and knowledge of the source. As this exercise shows, trademarks and trademark rights allow businesses to build goodwill and, in turn, significantly improve marketplace efficiency.

Examples of Enforcement

Real-world examples of enforcement of trademark rights also make effective teaching tools for illustrating the importance of trademark rights. For example, Adidas’s US $305 million jury ver-dict—later reduced to $65 million and now under appeal—in 2008 for Payless Shoes’ infringement of the three-stripe logo is strong quantitative evidence of the overall importance of trademark rights, even though such awards are not typical. While injunctive relief, sometimes coupled with substantially less significant money dam-ages, is a much more common remedy for trademark infringement, it too evidences the power of a trademark. For example, a U.S. court of appeals recently affirmed a preliminary injunction enjoining the use of MUSCLE POWER in connection with the selling and ad-vertising of a nutritional supplement that was already on the mar-ket, based on another firm’s senior rights to the MUSCLE MILK trademark.

educating Businesspeople about the Importance of Trademark rights

Even a small-business owner or manager of a minor product line can appreciate the significance of stopping a competitor from con-fusing the public as to the source of its goods as a means for improv-ing sales. With both the theoretical and the actual importance of trademarks as a backdrop, businesspeople can better appreciate the significance of properly selecting and using trademarks that yield strong and enforceable trademark rights.

Establishing Important Trademark Rights

Establishing trademark rights starts with the selection of a trade-mark, and selection of a trademark starts with brainstorming—typi-cally brainstorming by businesspeople. After such businesspeople come up with several potential trademarks, the marks are assessed in light of various marketing and legal considerations, and a decision is made as to which one to adopt. At this early point, an understand-ing of the concept of distinctiveness is essential to selecting an effec-tive mark that can yield strong trademark rights.

To start, a businessperson needs to understand that without dis-tinctiveness there is no trademark. The more distinctive the trade-mark, the greater the strength of the trademark and, in theory, the stronger and more expansive the trademark rights associated with it. Accordingly, when brainstorming and selecting a trademark, the businessperson should strive for a distinctive mark. Trademark distinctiveness has two components: the relationship between the trademark and the goods and/or services with which it is used, and the relationship between the trademark and other marks in the mar-ketplace that are used for similar goods and/or services.

Inherent distinctiveness is a function of the relationship between the trademark and the goods or services for which the mark is used. Levels of distinctiveness include generic (incapable of becoming dis-tinctive), descriptive (capable of becoming distinctive through use), suggestive and arbitrary/fanciful, but the underlying concept is that the more unrelated the meaning of the word or design is to the good or service that will be provided in connection with the mark, the more distinctive the trademark and the more likely the trademark is to garner the attention of a consumer.

Again, examples are a good way to illustrate the concept for busi-Continued on next page

John w. McGlynn, ratnerPrestia Pc, wilmington, Delaware, usA

use INTa’s online resources for educating businesspeopleVisit the Information & Publishing section of www.inta.org to find the following resources and more:

• Trademark Basics: A Guide for Business (download this handy brochure at www.inta.org/downloads/documents/2009_TrademarkBasics.pdf)

• Trademark Fact Sheets, explaining trademark topics in a Q&A format (in the Basic Trademark Information subsection)

• PowerPoint Presentations, on topics like Top Ten reasons Why You should Care about Trademarks (in the Other Reference Materials subsection)

Contact INTA Director of Publishing Randi Mustelloat rmustello@inta.org for help with online resources.

FeAtures

Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878January 15, 20108

nesspeople: PAPER used in connection with printing paper would be at one end of the distinctiveness spectrum, whereas PAPER used in connection with automobiles would be at the other end. PA-PER used in connection with printing paper makes no impact, but PAPER used as a trademark in connection with an automobile is surprising and commands attention.

Analogies are also effective. Consider attaching a bright light to an item that is already emitting light, as opposed to attaching a bright light to an item that is typically dark and dull. The light at-tached to the already bright item may go unnoticed, whereas the light attached to the typically dark and dull item will get attention. The goal is to adopt a mark that stands out and creates a memorable impression on consumers.

Once a businessperson understands the concept of trademark distinctiveness in the context of the relationship between a trade-mark and goods and/or services and the impact of distinctiveness on inherent strength and trademark rights, the same concept also explains the impact that other marks in the marketplace have on trademark rights and the important role that effective trademark searching plays in the selection of a trademark and development of trademark rights. For example, even if a proposed trademark is inherently distinctive and completely unrelated to the goods or services with which it will be used, the proposed mark is not actu-ally distinctive if a competitor is already using a confusingly similar mark in the marketplace.

To illustrate this point, have the businessperson consider a col-lection of like goods on a sales rack in a dark store. A bright light attached to one of the products significantly distinguishes it from the others, but bright lights on several of the products diminish the effect. Not only do similar marks preexisting in the marketplace pre-vent a new trademark from attaining source-indicating significance, but placing the new trademark in the marketplace can damage the effectiveness of the preexisting similar marks and fuel allegations of trademark infringement and possibly a lawsuit.

Preserving and Strengthening Important Trademark Rights

Trademark rights are not static. Once trademarks have been es-tablished, their owners must use them properly and assert the as-sociated trademark rights to preserve trademark distinctiveness and strengthen those important rights. Businesspeople who understand the importance of properly using trademarks and policing unau-thorized use of trademarks have additional insight into trademark rights and can be valuable allies to trademark professionals and trademark owners alike.

Improperly used trademarks lose distinctiveness and cease to create an association between a good or service and its source. Re-turning to the bright light analogy, consumers will not associate the bright light with the product if the light is affixed to the product on some days, the light is affixed to the floor on others and the light is left off altogether on still others. Businesspeople need to understand that trademarks must be used as trademarks to preserve their source-signifying power.

Properly using a trademark entails consistently using the mark as an adjective, in a way that stands out, and with notice that the mark is, in fact, a trademark. Using the goal of distinctiveness as a guide, it is easy to explain the importance of these rules of proper trademark use to businesspeople. If a trademark is used as a noun and becomes the generic name for a product, regardless of the actual source of that product, it ceases to be distinctive, removing the as-

educating Businesspeople Continued from previous page

sociation between the trademark and a particular source.Similarly, if a trademark is used in such a way that it does not

stand out from surrounding wording in such a manner that it is perceived as a trademark, the trademark is not distinctive, it will not be noticed by consumers and consumers will not associate it with a source. Have the businessperson consider a product with a barely perceptible dim light affixed to it. If a consumer does not notice the mark, it certainly is not distinctive and will not yield strong trademark rights.

Just as with improperly used trademarks, others’ use of confus-ingly similar marks will likewise erode trademark distinctiveness, potentially to the point where the trademark ceases to create an as-sociation between a good or service and its source. Using the bright light analogy, others’ use of similar bright lights in connection with similar products detracts from the single bright light and softens its impact. Businesspeople need to understand that not only is it possi-ble to diminish trademark rights through misuse of one’s own mark, but allowing others to use confusingly similar marks in the market-place has a similar damaging effect. With other, similar marks in the marketplace, the original trademark loses distinctiveness. As distinc-tiveness erodes, trademark rights erode and it becomes more diffi-cult to assert trademark rights against confusingly similar marks—a vicious cycle, to say the least.

Working relationships between trademark professionals and busi-nesspeople can only improve with a common appreciation for the importance of trademark rights. Make allies of businesspeople col-leagues by taking the time to illuminate the importance of trade-mark rights early in your relationship.

Take advantage of this convenient opportunity to earn CLE credits and equip yourself with the tools needed to hone your knowledge and skills in trademark practice. This four-part u.s. Trademark Basics Webcast offers a comprehensive, broad-based review of U.S. trademark law practice and is designed for:

• New attorneys • Individuals new to trademark law • Anyone who wants a refresher course on U.S.

trademark basics

WEBCAST:

learn more and sign up today at www.inta.org/go/education

U.S. TRADEMARK BASICS PROGRAMaVaIlaBle ThrOuGh JuNe 30, 2010

FeAtures

www.inta.org 9Vol. 65, No. 2

Shortly after Rio de Janeiro was selected to host the 2016 Summer Olympic and Paralympic Games, the Congress passed The Olympic Act (Law 12,035/09 of October 1, 2009). The Act contains a num-ber of special rules required for the carrying out of the Olympic Games, among them specific provisions designed to protect the of-ficial symbols and curb ambush marketing during the events.

Under Article 6, federal authorities are responsible for monitor-ing, investigating and suppressing any unlawful acts that violate the rights in the Olympic symbols in connection with the Rio 2016 Games. The Act broadly defines the symbols as:

• all graphically distinctive signs, flags, mottos, emblems and an-thems used by the International Olympic Committee (IOC);

• the names “Olympic Games,” “Paralympic Games,” “Rio 2016 Olympic Games,” “Rio 2016 Paralympic Games,” “XXXI Olympic Games,” “Rio 2016,” “Rio Olympics,” “Rio 2016 Olympics,” “Rio Paralympics,” “Rio 2016 Paralympics” and other abbreviations and variations, and also those equally rel-evant that may be created for the same purposes, in any lan-guage, including those in connection with websites;

• the name, emblem, flag, anthem, motto and trademarks and other symbols of the Rio 2016 Organizing Committee; and

• the mascots, trademarks, torches and other symbols in con-nection with the XXXI Olympic Games, Rio 2016 Olympic Games and Rio 2016 Paralympic Games.

Further, the Act expressly dictates that unless previously and ex-pressly authorized by the Rio 2016 Games Organizing Committee or the IOC, the use of any symbols in connection with the Rio 2016 Games, whether or not for commercial use, is forbidden.

Also, the Act takes aim at ambush marketing practices in Article 8, where the above prohibition is enlarged to also cover the use of terms and expressions that, albeit outside the list of symbols men-tioned in this law, are “sufficiently similar to them to the extent that they are able to invoke an undue association of any products and services whatsoever, or even any company, transaction or event, with the Rio 2016 Games or Olympic Movement.”

BrazIlCongress adopts legislation to Curb ambush Marketing During 2016 summer Olympics

The Act complements the already-existing rules of other statutes and treaties, which can be used to protect the Olympic symbols and curb ambush marketing. These include the following:

• the Nairobi Treaty for the protection of the Olympic symbol;• the Brazilian Industrial Property Law (Law 9,279/96), which

prohibits the registration as marks of names, prizes or symbols of official sporting events, as well as imitations likely to cause confusion, except when authorized by the competent authority or entity promoting the event;

• the Pelé Law (Law 9,615/98), a provision of which grants the Brazilian Olympic Committee exclusive rights in relation to the flags, mottos, anthems and Olympic symbols, as well as to the names “jogos olímpicos,” “olimpíadas,” “jogos paraolímpi-cos” and “paraolimpíadas”;

• the copyright protection afforded to symbols, designs and mas-cots, as well as any other works;

• the protection afforded to the name and image (likeness) of athletes by the Brazilian Civil Code, as well as the Pelé Law;

• rules against unfair competition provided in international agreements such as the Paris Convention and the TRIPS Agreement and in the Brazilian Industrial Property Law;

• rules against unjust enrichment provided in the Brazilian Civil Code; and

• specific rules against ambush marketing provided by the Code of Ethics of CONAR (Conselho Nacional de Auto-Regula-mentação Publicitária, the National Advertising Self-Regulat-ing Council), a private entity created in 1980 by local advertis-ers, advertising agencies and media companies.

Similar legislation that will apply to the soccer World Cup 2014 in Brazil is under consideration in the Brazilian Senate.

contributor: rodrigo Borges carneiro, Dannemann siemsen Bigler & ipanema Moreira, rio de Janeiro; Verifier: walter w. Palmer, Pinheiro Palmer Advogados,

rio de Janeiro, vice chair of the intA Bulletin committee.

In a judgment of November 12, 2009, the German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) upheld, inter alia, the trademarks WM, 2010 and SÜDAFRIKA 2010, registered as word and device trademarks in the name of Ferrero Deutschland GmbH, a German producer of chocolate and sweets, against cancellation actions by the Fédéra-tion Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). FIFA had based its cancellation actions on the trademarks WM 2010 and SOUTH AFRICA 2010.

The Ferrero marks were challenged by FIFA on grounds of trade-mark infringement and unfair competition. The FCJ dismissed FIFA’s infringement claim, arguing that the FIFA and Ferrero marks were not confusingly similar. Moreover, according to the FCJ, FIFA was not entitled to proceed against the Ferrero marks based on title rights in the designation WM 2010, GERMANY 2006 and SOUTH AFRICA 2010. Finally, the FCJ also denied the unfair competition claims asserted by FIFA.

GerMaNYFederal Court of Justice rejects FIFa’s Cancellation Claims against Third-Party World Cup Trademarks

This decision is a significant setback for FIFA in its efforts to es-tablish an extended scope of protection for marketing activities in relation to the World Cup tournaments. Prior to the ruling, FIFA had withdrawn its German trademark application for WM 2010 after the German Patent and Trademark Office had denied the reg-istrability of the mark on account of its descriptive character. Even though OHIM did grant a Community trade mark registration for WM 2010, it is uncertain, given the background of the FCJ’s decision, whether FIFA will be entitled to successfully enforce the Community trade mark WM 2010 against similar but not identical trademarks and designations in Germany.

contributor: Michaela Huth-Dierig, Boehmert & Boehmert, Munich;Verifier: wiebke Baars, taylor wessing, Hamburg.

Ms. Huth-Dierig is a member of and Ms. Baars is co-chairof the intA Bulletin Law & Practice—europe subcommittee.

LAw & PrActice

Representing Trademark Owners Since 1878January 15, 201010

The Intellectual Property Court has ruled against the Mitsui Group in its application for invalidation of the trademark 三井 SAN JING (MITSUI SAN JING) filed by Antico Corporation (三井 = Mitsui (Japanese) and San Jing (Mandarin)). The restaurant 三井, owned by the Mitsui Group, was featured in the news because of the insider trading scandal involving former president Chen Shui Bian’s son-in-law, Chien-Ming Chao. Mitsui believes that its mark is famous, and therefore the company should be able to preclude other trademarks, such as 三井 SAN JING, from being registered.

In May 2006, Antico filed a trademark application for 三井 SAN JING, covering leather goods such as wallets, bags and suitcases. Mitsui felt that the trademark was similar to its own and would con-fuse the relevant consumers; therefore, it filed applications seeking to both oppose and invalidate Antico’s trademark registration. The Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) ruled against Mitsui on both the opposition and the invalidation applications, finding that the goods designated by the trademarks were very different.

TaIWaNIP Court Denies attempt to secure exclusive rights to 三井 saN JING

Mitsui appealed to the Intellectual Property Court, requesting that it invalidate Antico’s trademark. The court pointed out that the Chinese words 三井 are common; therefore, the trademark was an arbitrary mark with less distinctiveness than creative marks. Even though the marks at issue were similar, the Chinese words 三井 were not originally invented by Mitsui, and various trademarks using the same words have been allowed for registration in other classes. Furthermore, Antico designated its trademark for leather goods, while Mitsui designated its trademark for food and bever-age services. From the perspective of the general public, the nature, function and use of the designated goods were very different, and each market segment was very distinct. Thus, the court upheld the decision of the TIPO, ruling against Mitsui in the appeal.

contributor: Jenny Yu, A & Finet international Patent & Law office, taipei;Verifier: tzu-nan Huang, secure international Patent & trademark office, taipei

lIBYaChange in Documents required for Filing Trademark applications

contributor: christiane Bou Khater, talal Abu-Ghazaleh Legal, riyadh, saudi Arabia; Verifier: Ali Hijazi, Abu-Ghazaleh intellectual Property, Amman, Jordan

The Libyan Trademark Office announced that, starting January 1, 2010, a certified copy of the home (country of origin) or foreign registration certificate of the trademark is required when filing an application in Libya.

Documents required for filing trademark applications are:

• Power of attorney of the applicant, duly legalized by the Libyan consulate in the applicant’s home country.

• Certified copy of the home or foreign registration certificate of the trademark.

• Commercial Extract or Certificate of Incorporation of applicant’s company, duly legalized by the Libyan consulate in the applicant’s home country.

• 15 prints of the trademark.• Certified copy of the priority document, if priority is to be

claimed.

A recent decision from the Court of Appeals of the state of Rio Grande do Sul should help open the path for more effective solu-tions for domain names that violate famous and well-known marks.

According to Brazilian Domain Name Registry (NIC BR) Reso-lution No. 08/2008, a domain name can be cancelled in Brazil in the following scenarios:

• voluntarily by the owner;• if the owner does not pay the required official fees;• by judicial order;• if the owner provides false information while registering;• if the owner does not start doing business in Brazil within 12

months from registration.

Resolution 08/2008 does not contemplate the possibility of transferring the domain name directly by judicial order. Therefore, a trademark owner is usually forced to seek a court order to cancel an unduly registered domain name and, afterwards, to proceed to register the cancelled domain itself, incurring more costs and time.

After discovering the domain names www.dellinformatica.com.br and www.dellcomputadores.com.br, Dell, Inc., started court

BrazIlDecision Improves ability to recover Domain Names

measures against the domain name owner.The trial court’s final decision ordered the infringer to stop its un-

due use of the DELL trademark, cancel the domain names or trans-fer them to Dell, and indemnify Dell. By the end of the lawsuit, however, the defendant had disappeared, probably to avoid paying the fees stipulated by court. The defendant’s absence was an obstacle because NIC BR’s internal rules only allow the transfer of domain names if the owner itself requests. Thus the trial court did not order NIC BR to transfer the domain names to Dell.

Invoking the Brazilian legal principles of analogy of laws, econo-my and speed of process, Dell appealed and the Court of Appeals re-versed the decision, ordering NIC BR to transfer the domain names to their rightful owner. The judge stated that the domain names at issue could only be owned by Dell (due to the company’s fame and goodwill in the market) and should be directly assigned to Dell.

contributor: otávio saraiva Padilha Velasco, soerensen GarciaAdvogados Associados, rio de Janeiro;

Verifier: Letícia Provedel, Veirano Advogados, são Paulo

LAw & PrActice

www.inta.org 11Vol. 65, No. 2

On November 19, 2009, the European Court of First Instance (CFI) issued decisions denying registration to Community trade mark (CTM) applications filed by Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. for the numerals 150, 250, 350, 222, 333 and 555 (for “periodicals, books, games brochures” in Class 16), the numeral 1000 (for “brochures, periodicals containing crossword puzzles and rebus puzzles, newspapers” in Class 16) and the word and device trademarks containing the digits 100 and 300 (covering “posters, albums, booklets, magazines, forms, printed matter, newspapers, calendars, crosswords puzzles, rebuses” in Class 16 and products and services in Classes 28 and 41).

The Board found that 150, 250, 350, 222, 333, 555 and 1000 were descriptive of the amount of information contained in the products specified in Class 16. The CFI upheld the Board’s deci-sion, confirming that there was a direct and specific link between the marks 150, 250, 350, 222, 333, 555 and 1000 and the charac-teristics of the Class 16 products designated, such as the number of pages and works, the amount of data, the number of puzzles in the collection or the ranking of items referred to in them. For the nu-

eurOPeaN uNION1, 2, 3 … so Many attempts, But still No Trademark registration for Numerals!

meral 1000, the Court more specifically pointed out that brochures, periodicals and magazines preferred round numbers for indicating the content, and this strengthened the descriptive relationship be-tween the products and the mark for the average consumer.

The CFI’s decisions are in line with a past decision of the OHIM Third Board of Appeal for the numeral “7,” which started it all: whereas, under the CTM Regulation, numerals are included among those signs that are capable of distinguishing goods or services of one undertaking from those of another undertaking, plain numerals per se, without any unusual or fanciful feature, are deprived of any distinctive character because they belong to the public domain and are available to all.

These decisions show that the level of distinctiveness sufficient for registration requires that designs or other fanciful features be added to numerals.

contributors: Franck soutoul and Jean-Philippe Bresson, inlex iP expertise, Paris, France; Verifier: Vanessa Bouchara, cabinet Bouchara, Paris, France. Mr. Bresson

is a member of the intA Bulletin Law & Practice—europe subcommittee.

On November 9, 2009, Congress approved Peru’s accession to The Hague Apostille Convention, which was effected by Legislative Res-olution No. 29445, dated November 17, 2009. Although already a member of The Hague Conference, Peru had not signed the Hague Convention with respect to the Apostille. On November 24, 2009, the Peruvian government issued Supreme Decree No. 086-2009-RE, signed by the President and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Peru, ratifying the country’s accession to The Hague Apostille Convention. The Convention will not enter into force until Peru deposits the corresponding instrument of accession and, afterward, another internal Peruvian law formally declares its entry into force.

Regarding intellectual property issues, this will affect some pow-ers of attorney granted abroad, which until now have required legal-ization by a Peruvian consulate in the foreign country.

It is important to note that the Apostille is valid only for those countries that have signed the Convention. If the foreign country where the power of attorney is signed is not a signatory to the Con-vention, legalization by a Peruvian consulate will still be necessary.

It is also important to note that the Peruvian Industrial Property Law (Legislative Decree 1075) states that a power of attorney can be granted as a private document (without consular legalization) provided the party does not require the attorney to engage in the

PeruCongress unanimously approves accession to hague apostille Convention

following:

• Withdraw an application or cause of action or other procedural action;

• Waive a registration that has been granted; or• File infringement actions for the violation of IP rights.

If the applicant desires to perform any of the foregoing actions, it will be still necessary to have the power of attorney legalized by a Peruvian consulate until The Hague Apostille Convention formally becomes effective in Peru. In addition, if the power is granted on behalf of a company or corporation, it must indicate, in all cases, the position of the person who signed it.

Finally, although the Peruvian Trademark Office is already very prompt in handling trademark registration proceedings, Peru’s rati-fication of The Hague Apostille Convention will expedite such pro-ceedings even more, because in most consular legalization of the power of attorney will no longer be required, as is the case of many other Latin American countries.

contributor: renzo scavia r., scavia & Zúñiga Abogados, Lima, intA Bulletin Law & Practice—Latin America & the caribbean subcommittee;

Verifier: Jorge Perez Albela, Forsyth & Arbe Abogados, Lima

The Trademark Reporter seeks contributions from trademark professionals and is particularly looking to expand its coverage of international issues by international writers.

Contact the Managing Editor at tmr@inta.org or visit The Trademark Reporter portion of INTA’s website at www.inta.org

The Law Journal of the International Trademark Association

UNITED STATES ANNUAL REVIEW

The Sixtieth Year of

Administration of the U.S. Trademark (Lanham) Act

of 1946

Theodore H. Davis, Jr. Jordan S. Weinstein

Vol. 98 January-February, 2008 No. 1

®

LAw & PrActice

International Trademark association655 Third Avenue, 10th FloorNew York, NY 10017 USA+1-212-768-9887 • f: +1-212-768-7796www.inta.org • info@inta.org

eMaIl aDDressesINTA Bulletin: bulletin@inta.orgCustomer Service: customerservice@inta.orgPrograms: meetings@inta.orgJob Bank: jobbank@inta.orgPolicy & Advocacy: tmaffairs@inta.orgPublic Relations: publicrelations@inta.orgPublications: publications@inta.orgRoundtables: roundtables@inta.org

WWW.INTa.OrGVisit the INTA Bulletin on www.inta.org to download the currentissue or to search issues from January 1, 2000 to the present.

exhibitions and sponsorshipTo inquire about sponsorship or exhibition opportunities for INTA’s events, visit www.inta.orgor email sponsorship@inta.org

International TRademark Association

See you in

Register by March 26 and take advantage of the early bird registration fee!

www.inta.org/go/boston