Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content

Quick Launch

  
  
  
  
Description
  
AustraliaAmicus Briefs filed in Australia
  
INTA provides expertise in trademark law to courts around the world through amicus briefs and other filings. INTA briefs are drafted by the Association's International Amicus Committee and approved for filing by the Executive Committee or Board of Directors.
1
AustraliaAmicus Briefs filed in Australia
  
http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTAInternationalHairCosmetics.pdf?Referring_ProjectID=8&Referring_JurisdictionID=0
INTA Position: INTA sought to intervene before the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia to make submissions on issues relating to how the courts of New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States have approached the issue of online trademark use and its interaction with domestic trademark rights. The trend in international jurisprudence indicates that, generally, drop-down boxes, currency conversion tools, distribution maps, delivery and a country-specific domain name suffice to amount to trademark use in a jurisdiction.
Outcome: the parties came to an agreement out of court before the hearing.

CanadaAmicus Briefs filed in Canada
  
INTA provides expertise in trademark law to courts around the world through amicus briefs and other filings. INTA briefs are drafted by the Association's International Amicus Committee and approved for filing by the Executive Committee or Board of Directors.
1
CanadaAmicus Briefs filed in Canada
  
http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTAMasterpieceAlavida.pdf?Referring_ProjectID=8&Referring_JurisdictionID=0
INTA Position: the Supreme Court of Canada should clarify that the fact that two parties' marks were not used in the same geographical area on the date the junior user applied to register its mark is not relevant to the determination of likelihood of confusion between the marks.

Outcome: the Supreme Court, noting INTA's participation as an intervener, held that geographical separation in the use of otherwise confusingly similar trademarks does not play a role in the determination of likelihood of confusion


CanadaAmicus Briefs filed in Canada
  
http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTAVeuveLesBoutiques.pdf?Referring_ProjectID=8&Referring_JurisdictionID=0
INTA Position: Under Canadian law, famous marks can be entitled to a broader scope of protection than lesser-known marks in the context of both likelihood of confusion and dilution. Also, depreciation of goodwill is a cause of action unique from likelihood of confusion.

Outcome: The Supreme Court of Canada held that the fame of a mark is an important consideration in a likelihood of confusion analysis. Referring to INTA’s brief a number of times, the Court pointed out that the Association’s participation helped bring “to the fore” the seldom-discussed depreciation of goodwill cause of action under Trade-marks Act Section 22.
ChinaAmicus Briefs filed in China
  
INTA provides expertise in trademark law to courts around the world through amicus briefs and other filings. INTA briefs are drafted by the Association's International Amicus Committee and approved for filing by the Executive Committee or Board of Directors.
1
ChinaAmicus Briefs filed in China
  
http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTAIKEABeijing.pdf?Referring_ProjectID=8&Referring_JurisdictionID=0
INTA Position: In its first brief filed in a Chinese court, INTA argued that the act of registering a domain name similar or identical to a famous trademark constitutes unfair competition. Outcome: The Chinese Supreme Court held that registration of a domain name can constitute unfair competition and trademark infringement.

European UnionAmicus Briefs filed in European Union
  
INTA provides expertise in trademark law to courts around the world through amicus briefs and other filings. INTA briefs are drafted by the Association's International Amicus Committee and approved for filing by the Executive Committee or Board of Directors.
1
European UnionAmicus Briefs filed in European Union
  
http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTAAdidasMarca.pdf?Referring_ProjectID=8&Referring_JurisdictionID=0
INTA Position: The scope of protection of a registered trademark does not depend on a consideration of the "requirement of availability" (that is, the avaibility of marks to other traders). Outcome: Consistent with INTA's position, the European Court of Justice held that infringement should be determined by analyzing likelihood of confusion, not by considering the "requirement of availability."
European UnionAmicus Briefs filed in European Union
  
http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTABovemijBenelux.pdf?Referring_ProjectID=8&Referring_JurisdictionID=0
INTA Position: Pursuant to European Trademarks Directive Article 3(3), distinctiveness can be acquired under Benelux law as a result of the use made of a trademark in a substantial part of Benelux territory (i.e., the Netherlands). Outcome: The European Court of Justice ruling was consistent with INTA's submission and held that distinctiveness acquired in the Netherlands was sufficient to permit registration in the Benelux territory.
European UnionAmicus Briefs filed in European Union
  
http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTAGlaxoDowelhurst.pdf?Referring_ProjectID=8&Referring_JurisdictionID=0
INTA Position: A parallel importer should be entitled to make only the minimum changes to the packaging necessary to maintain the principle of the free movement of goods. Changes to packaging should not be permitted to damage the assurance of quality or the brand image of the trademark owner. Outcome: The European Court of Justice held that a trademark owner may rely on its trademark rights to prevent a parallel importer from repackaging pharmaceutical products unless the exercise of those rights contributes to a restriction of trade.
European UnionAmicus Briefs filed in European Union
  
http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTAIntelCPM.pdf?Referring_ProjectID=8&Referring_JurisdictionID=0
INTA Position: Under the European Union's trademark dilution law, the analysis should not focus on whether there is a "link" between the well-known mark and the junior mark, but rather whether under all the circumstances there is a likelihood of unfair advantage because of use of the junior mark. Outcome: While the European Court of Justice did not reject the "link" analysis, it held—consistent with INTA's submission—that "existence of such a link must be assessed globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case."

European UnionAmicus Briefs filed in European Union
  
http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTALibertelBenelux.pdf?Referring_ProjectID=8&Referring_JurisdictionID=0
INTA Position: Under European trademark law, a color, under appropriate factual circumstances, can  function as a trademark. Outcome: The European Court of Justice ruled that color alone, without any form or shape, may function as a trademark if it has a distinctive character and if the color may be represented graphically in a way that is clear, precise, self-contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective.
European UnionAmicus Briefs filed in European Union
  
http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTANokiaHMRCECJ.pdf?Referring_ProjectID=8&Referring_JurisdictionID=0
INTA Position: the EU Counterfeit Goods Regulation permits local customs authorities to seize counterfeit goods that are in transit but not intended for sale in a member state. Outcome: The Advocate General's opinion was delivered February 3, 2011.


European UnionAmicus Briefs filed in European Union
  
http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTANokiaHMRCUK.pdf?Referring_ProjectID=8&Referring_JurisdictionID=0
INTA Position: Court should refer to the ECJ the question whether EU Counterfeit Goods Regulation permits local customs authorities to seize counterfeit goods that are in transit but not intended for sale in a member state. Outcome: UK Court of Appeals referred case to ECJ and granted INTA formal leave to intervene.
European UnionAmicus Briefs filed in European Union
  
http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTAParanovaMerck.pdf?Referring_ProjectID=8&Referring_JurisdictionID=0
INTA Position: INTA argued that a trademark proprietor has legitimate reasons to object to repackaging by a parallel importer where a connection to the parallel importer and damage to the trademark could be established. Outcome: The European Free Trade Association Court held that legitimate reasons to object to repackaging of pharmaceutical products may exist where changes to packaging are liable to damage the trademark's reputation.
European UnionAmicus Briefs filed in European Union
  
http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTAPraktiker.pdf?Referring_ProjectID=8&Referring_JurisdictionID=0
INTA Position: European trademark law allows the registration of service marks for retail services. Outcome: The European Court of Justice ruled that to register a trademark for retail trade services, it is not necessary to specify the services. Rather, the application should provide details about the goods or types of goods to which the services relate.
European UnionAmicus Briefs filed in European Union
  
http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTACeline.pdf?Referring_ProjectID=8&Referring_JurisdictionID=0
INTA Position: Use of a registered trademark as a company or trade name can be an infringing use within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the European Trademark Directive. Outcome: The European Court of Justice stated use of a registered trademark as a company name may be infringing if it is used in connection with goods and services such that it amounts to unfair competition.
European UnionAmicus Briefs filed in European Union
  
http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTAScheringEC.pdf?Referring_ProjectID=8&Referring_JurisdictionID=0
INTA Position: There should be no prohibition on the use of one trademark for the pharmaceutical form of a medicinal product and a second trademark for a dosage form of, or delivery device for, the product. Outcome: Action dismissed by the European Court of First Instance without decision on the merits.
European UnionAmicus Briefs filed in European Union
  
http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTAShieldmarkJKist.pdf?Referring_ProjectID=8&Referring_JurisdictionID=0
INTA Position: Under European trademark law, a sound, under appropriate factual circumstances, can function as a trademark. Outcome: The European Court of Justice ruled that sounds may function as trademarks, provided they are capable of distinguishing the goods and services of one undertaking from another and are capable of being represented graphically.
IndonesiaAmicus Briefs filed in Indonesia
  
INTA provides expertise in trademark law to courts around the world through amicus briefs and other filings. INTA briefs are drafted by the Association's International Amicus Committee and approved for filing by the Executive Committee or Board of Directors.
1
IndonesiaAmicus Briefs filed in Indonesia
  
http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTADavidoffSumatra.pdf?Referring_ProjectID=8&Referring_JurisdictionID=0
INTA Position: Emphasizing accepted international rules on well-known marks, particularly those contained in the WIPO Joint Recommendation on the Protection of Well-Known Marks, INTA argued that bad faith is an important factor to consider when assessing competing interests in a mark. Outcome: The Indonesian Supreme Court followed the guidelines advocated by INTA.
IndonesiaAmicus Briefs filed in Indonesia
  
http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTAFrenchDB.pdf?Referring_ProjectID=8&Referring_JurisdictionID=0
INTA Position: Bad faith registration of a mark should be protected against, regardless of whether the mark is well-known.
IndonesiaAmicus Briefs filed in Indonesia
  
http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTAIntelHanitio.pdf?Referring_ProjectID=8&Referring_JurisdictionID=0
INTA Position: In its brief to the Indonesian Supreme Court, INTA outlined the accepted international rules on well-known marks, particularly those contained in the WIPO Joint Recommendation on the Protection of Well-Known Marks and in 1996 and 1999 INTA Board Resolutions.
IndonesiaAmicus Briefs filed in Indonesia
  
http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTAIntelPanggungI.pdf?Referring_ProjectID=8&Referring_JurisdictionID=0
INTA Position: In its brief to the Indonesian Supreme Court, INTA outlined the accepted international rules on well-known marks, particularly those contained in the WIPO Joint Recommendation on the Protection of Well-Known Marks and in 1996 and 1999 INTA Board Resolutions.
IndonesiaAmicus Briefs filed in Indonesia
  
http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTAIntelPanggung.pdf?Referring_ProjectID=8&Referring_JurisdictionID=0
INTA Position: It is the period of non-use and not the exact date of last use that determines whether a trademark qualifies for deregistration.
IndonesiaAmicus Briefs filed in Indonesia
  
http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTAPrefelFahmi.pdf?Referring_ProjectID=8&Referring_JurisdictionID=0
INTA Position: In its brief to the Indonesian Supreme Court, INTA outlined the accepted international rules on well-known marks, particularly those contained in the WIPO Joint Recommendation on the Protection of Well-Known Marks and in 1996 and 1999 INTA Board Resolutions.
 
IndonesiaAmicus Briefs filed in Indonesia
  
http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTAPrestoneTeguh.pdf?Referring_ProjectID=8&Referring_JurisdictionID=0
INTA Position: Indonesian opposition proceedings against the registration of an allegedly infringing mark should not deter the Indonesian court from deciding on an infringement action relating to the same mark. Outcome: Consistent with INTA's position, the Supreme Court of Indonesia held that the lower court should not have deferred to the trademark office and should have made independent findings as to whether there was infringement. The Supreme Court examined the marks at issue and determined that there was a likelihood of confusion with the plaintiff's well-known mark.

IndonesiaAmicus Briefs filed in Indonesia
  
http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTANeomild.pdf?Referring_ProjectID=8&Referring_JurisdictionID=0
INTA Position: the Supreme Court of Indonesia should overturn the decision of the Commercial Court because 1) the fact that the defendant had been granted an excise license based on a statement that its tobacco products were not similar to the products of another should not prevent consideration of the plaintiff's trademark law claims; and 2) the fact that the plaintiff did not use its trademark exactly as registered should not result in invalidation of its trademark registration.
Outcome: the case was dismissed for procedural reasons and not heard by the Supreme Court.

IndonesiaAmicus Briefs filed in Indonesia
  
http://www.inta.org/Advocacy/Documents/INTATungswayIstana.pdf?Referring_ProjectID=8&Referring_JurisdictionID=0
INTA Position: In its brief to the Indonesian Supreme Court, INTA argued that the protection of well-known marks and the protection against bad faith registration, although related, are independent legal concepts. Moreover, use or registration of a mark in a jurisdiction should not be a requirement to determine whether that mark is well known or whether a third party's application for the same mark is made in bad faith.
1 - 30Next