E

WIPO WO/INF/108

ORIGINAL:English

DATE:December1994
WORLDINTELLECTUALPROPERTYORGANIZATION
GENEVA

CHARACTERMERCHANDISING

ReportpreparedbytheInternationalBureau1

1
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. INTELLECTUALPROPERTYRIGHTS.............................................................14

(a) 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. SCOPEOFPROTECTION...................................................................................24

A. RightsConferred....................................................................................................24

(a) Copyright ...............................................................................................................24

(b) IndustrialDesigns ..................................................................................................25

(c) Marks .....................................................................................................................25

B. EnforcementofRights;MeasuresandRemedies .................................................26

(a) Introduction............................................................................................................26

(b) CivilSanctions.......................................................................................................27

(i) Injunctions 27

PreliminaryInjunction .................................................................................27

FinalInjunction............................................................................................27

(ii) AccompanyingMeasures..............................................................................27

(iii) Damages 28

(iv) RectificationandPublicationoftheCourtDecision ...................................28

(c) RighttoSue ...........................................................................................................28

(i) InRespectofIntellectualPropertyRights ...................................................28

(ii) UnfairCompetition(andPassing-Off).........................................................29

(d) MeasurestoSecureEvidence(Discovery) ............................................................30

(i) DescriptiveandPhysicalSeizures ...............................................................30

(ii) AntonPillerOrder .......................................................................................30

(e) AcceleratedProceedings........................................................................................31

(f) CriminalSanctions.................................................................................................31

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.
withrespecttomovies,McGyverorColumbowithrespecttotelevisionseriesor
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,theholdersoftherightsattachedtoafictionalcharacterwhohaveno
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
provideforthesubstantiveexaminationofthedesign(noveltyand/ororiginality);therefore,
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. SCOPEOFPROTECTION

A. 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.Protectionagainstunfaircompetitionserv esnotonlythe
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,constitutesprima
facieevidenceofthevalidityofthecopyrightifitismadewithinfiveyearsafterfirst
publication.

8. Infringementofmoralrights(caselawinFrance:theAristocatscase2)

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).

2
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
entitledPinocchioMagazineanddiscoveredthatapublishingcompanywaspublishing
magazinesentitledPinocchioMagazineandPinocchioPochewhichcontained,interalia,
reproductionofthePinocchiocharactersadaptedbyWaltDisney.BeforetheCourt,the
publishingcompanyclaimedthatthetrademarkregistrationsofWaltDisneywerevoid
becausethecopyrightofCollodihadfallenintothepublicdomain.TheCourtrepliedthat
anybodycouldreproducetheliteraryworkofCollodiforrepublicationorevenforan
adaptation,butthattheadaptationshouldfollowtheessentialandcharacteristicfeaturesofthe
originalworkandnotthoseresultingfromthecartoonadaptationmadebyWaltDisney.
Furthermore,theworkofCollodibeinginthepublicdomain,ithadbecomearesnullius
whichcouldbeappropriated,asregardsthenamesofthecharacters,astrademarksby
Walt Disney.

3
CourtofAppealofParis,4eChambre,November23,1977inAnnalesdelaProprit
Industrielle,1979,page68.
4
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
appliesunderArticle9(l)(a)and(b)oftheRegulation.

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:

5
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
489U.S.141,103L.Ed.2d118,109.S.Ct.971,9USPQ2d1847,1858(1989).
7
Hirschv.S.C.Johnson&Sons,90Wis.2d379,280H.W.2d129(1979).
8
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

9
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,PresidentGeorgesPompidouwasabletopreventtheuseofhis
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
stronglyassociatedwiththeactorhimself.

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
(1953)202F.2d866(2dCir.),cert.denied,346U.S.816.
13
300F.2d256,132USPQ662(1stCir.1961).
14
124F.2d650,52USPQ146(4thCir.1942).
15
(1979)25Cal.Sd813,160Cal.Rptr.,603P.2d425.
16
SDNY1981)523F.Supp.485;(2dCir.1982)689F.2d317.
17
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(suchasFrance ),acourtmaydecideatthesametimethatthecontinued
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 Texts

Australia CopyrightActof1968,asamendedin1986
TradeMarksAct1955,asamendedin1987
DesignsAct1906,asamendedin1981
TradePracticesAct1974,asamendedin1981
UnfairPublicationsBill

Canada 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)

Chile CopyrightLawof1970,asamendedin1985
LawinstitutingtheRulesApplicabletotheTitles
ofIndustrialPropertyandtotheProtectionof
IndustrialPropertyRightsof1991
CivilCode(Article2314)
BillofRightsoftheConstitution
LawofPrivacy
LawofDefamation

France CopyrightLawof1957
CopyrightLawof1985,asamendedin1986
TrademarkLawof1991
IndustrialDesignsLawof1909asamendedin1990Civil
Code(Articles9and1382)
PenalCode

Note:Translationsofthetitlesofthelegislativetextsarenotofficial.
 WO/INF/108

AnnexII,page2

Country Texts

Germany CopyrightLawof1965,asamendedin1985
TrademarkLawof1968,asamendedin1979
DesignsLawof1876,asamendedin1986
UnfairCompetitionLawof1909asamended
CivilCode

India CopyrightStatuteof1957asamendedin1984
TradeandMerchandiseMarksAct,1958
TheDesignAct1911asamendedin1970
TheMonopoliesandRestrictiveTradePracticesAct
of1969,asamendedin1985
PreventionofImproperUseAct1950

Japan CopyrightLawof1970,asamendedin1991
TrademarkLawof1959,asamendedin1987
DesignLawof1959,asamendedin1987
UnfairCompetitionLawof1934,asamendedin1975

Nigeria CopyrightDecreeof1988
TradeMarksActof1965
PatentsandDesignsDecreeof1970

United Copyright,DesignsandPatentsActof1988
Kingdom TradeMarksActof1938,asamendedin1986and1988
TheTradeMarksAct,1994
TheRegisteredDesignsAct,1949,asamendedin1988
TheTradeDescriptionsAct1968(Section3(4))

UnitedStatesof TheCodeofLawsoftheUnitedStates:
America Title17,Copyright,asamendedin1991;
Title15,Trademarks,asamendedin1988;
Title35,Sections171to173,Designs.
FederalTradeCommissionActof1914,asamended
PrivacyStatutesofCaliforniaandNewYork
 WO/INF/108

AnnexII,page3

Regional Texts
Legislation

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

[EndofAnnexIIandofdocument]